Recruit levels

We often talk about recruit levels, how we get them, the numbers, etc. In the past I have mentioned that Chinese positions get low numbers compared to their population size and we have had various discussions on why that is. I recently asked Richard about it-not as a moan or complaint but out of curiosity to better understand the mechanics of the game.

Richard kindly sent me a very detailed, informative and useful reply. I thought I'd share it as I feel it could be really useful for others who might want to understand some of the finer game points better.

"Recruiting levels-The basis for working out numbers of recruits any state acquires varies. Leaving aside local factors such as how the economy is doing (if the economy is booming less recruits are available since more employment is available), this depends on part on social structure.
For example, in Europe regions operating with serfs get less recruits on average compared to the population than those operating without serfs. So, in Sweden, the British Isles and the United Provinces you’ll more recruits on a relative basis than do the Italians, Germans, those on the Spanish Peninsular, and in the Polish Commonwealth, or in Prussia, Russia, Moldavia, Wallachia, Austria, Hungary, Transylvania, or Denmark.
Serf-like rates are also assumed for Muslim lands, including in the Ottoman Empire, and for all of Africa.
Even lower base rates are employed in the non-Muslim Far East, China, and in Hindu India. This is because of how their societies are arranged, for example in India the Hindus have the caste system.
The basic assumption is some societies tie up labour to their lords and/or the land, perhaps in a form of feudalism, or limit their functions, more than others do. That does not mean it is impossible for a player to access such recruits, only that it isn’t automatic or necessarily easy –sometimes it can be achieved by ‘buying’ more recruits off your own nobles, if they agree to do so!"

This has really clarified things for me and will make it easier for me to plan my games a bit better

That is indeed interesting ...

I think one of the old rulebooks did explain the reason for low recruits in India as being a result of the caste system, but this is a lot more detailed.

I am surprised and it ties in up to a point with the discussion on EH.  Must admit I hadn't noticed any major difference between English recruit numbers and those of the Papal States, just accepted that the numbers were what they were and had resulted from historic actions by players which impacted EH and therefore varied the number of recruits.  What with constant war and theft of recruits plus the effect of famines and the 5 year population uplift, there seemed to be too many variables to model accurately.  But I suppose yes, the English figure is slightly above what I would have expected.

It is rather uncomfortable reading for Scotland, though - the Highland Clan System is probably as close to serfdom/feudalism as exists in the British Isles and I am committed to retaining it partly because of the historical colour it gives.  But it does explain how I was able to mobilise the clans to support my restoration - thousands of fully armed soldiers just appeared.  Do these represent the hidden recruits within Scotland?  It seems the most likely explanation, except it raises more questions than that.

I had thought these hidden recruits would have acted as a form of massed levy or cantonment system (bit like the Cossacks for Russia), so summoning them would drop EH.  I don't remember this happening, but then Scotland was in rebel hands at the time so the effect may have been hidden.  I know other players have abolished serfdom in Russia and seen economic benefits (to EH and presumably to recruit numbers) which fits.  But since people don't just appear or disappear, what are they actually doing in the economy before they are tapped by players - they still have to be fed, housed, etc, but by nobles rather than the state?  Does the level of hidden recruits simply denote the inbuilt level of inefficiency in an economy.  England and UDP were more agriculturally advanced (enclosures) than other countries (can't explain why Sweden gets a bonus), so they start with more of their workforce employed in more productive occupations than agriculture.  And since rice planting/harvesting is hugely labour intensive that might explain the lower figures for Far East and China/Japan.  I can understand lower recruit figures for Spain (prone to famine) and Portugal (mountainous interior so difficult for farming), but UDP is prone to famine also so perhaps that is only part of the explanation.  In some countries the population has always had high levels of emigration, either to the colonies or neighbouring lands, so perhaps this is another factor?  Conversely natural trading nations (which could include England, UDP and Sweden) had large merchant navies who could hire foreign seafarers in overseas ports, replenishing lost labour that way?

Not sure where any of this is leading yet other than just throwing ideas out for discussion.  I would have thought that Chinese positions were so huge anyway that lack of recruits is the least of their worries, and trying to tap those hidden recruits by changing society in one province would be a huge experiment with consequences unknowable in advance.  I can't really comment on Ottoman or Muslim lands since I haven't played those positions, but I think slavery was fairly common so perhaps this could be another factor?  The more control or ownership the nobility had over the people, the fewer recruits/head of population?  But the nobility had power because of the people they controlled and if you free the people you to a certain extent reduce the earnings, power and social status of the nobility?  This was certainly a factor I had to think about with the Clan Chiefs - few were rich, living in cold castles in rather desolate areas: take their people from them and you could easily cause depopulation of the Highlands before the historic clearances when they were driven off for political reasons and replaced with sheep.  The value of land (and therefore the wealth of the nobility) is not just from the value of standing timber, but mainly from the number of people it can support whether from arable or livestock farming.  There will probably be an optimal population level in most areas, but asking advisors to calculate it in advance to see if such major changes are worthwhile seems to be very risky.

You'll most probably be pleased to hear, for your longer term planning, this doesn't make any noticeable impact on Scotland. The recruit numbers I have received each year are inline with what I would have expected-at worst 100-200 less than my ideal number. Against that, as you found, is the Highland warriors. My experience is different to yours, as playing an independent Scotland in two different games, in both cases I received at the outset 30 stood down battalions of Highlanders as tribal infantry. They are exactly the same as any other battalion, so you can mobilise them, disband them and reuse their recruits, etc and they are completely loyal (as I have discovered in both games).

The latest supplements do seem to suggest there is a further supply of highland warriors. I suspect they would only come into play in the event of a rebellion and I also suspect they would go with the historical model with some rebelling and others joining the government. Maybe it was these that became active in G7.

As to China, it depends how you are playing the game. At the start of G9 I had a economy of 6 and that gave me 40,000 recruits and an existing military (purely army, no navy at the start) of over 250,000. If you play a purely or primarily a military game, that number of recruits each year is enough I suspect. However if you do go for infrastructure and trade buildup, want doctors, judges etc (and you have to bear in mind each Chinese province has a population of 30 million), it doesn't feel like enough.
At the moment my economy is at 8 and that still gives me 28,000 recruits a year, a lot yes but an extra 10,000 or so would be nice

Jason2 wrote:You'll most probably be pleased to hear, for your longer term planning, this doesn't make any noticeable impact on Scotland.  The recruit numbers I have received each year are inline with what I would have expected-at worst 100-200 less than my ideal number.  Against that, as you found, is the Highland warriors.  My experience is different to yours, as playing an independent Scotland in two different games, in both cases I received at the outset 30 stood down battalions of Highlanders as tribal infantry.  They are exactly the same as any other battalion, so you can mobilise them, disband them and reuse their recruits, etc and they are completely loyal (as I have discovered in both games).

The latest supplements do seem to suggest there is a further supply of highland warriors.  I suspect they would only come into play in the event of a rebellion and I also suspect they would go with the historical model with some rebelling and others joining the government.  Maybe it was these that became active in G7.

As to China, it depends how you are playing the game.  At the start of G9 I had a economy of 6 and that gave me 40,000 recruits and an existing military (purely army, no navy at the start) of over 250,000.  If you play a purely or primarily a military game, that number of recruits each year is enough I suspect.  However if you do go for infrastructure and trade buildup, want doctors, judges etc (and you have to bear in mind each Chinese province has a population of 30 million), it doesn't feel like enough.
At the moment my economy is at 8 and that still gives me 28,000 recruits a year, a lot yes but an extra 10,000 or so would be nice

Sorry Jason if my responses at the moment are slightly out of sync with some of your observations.   I'm trying to do several different things at the moment and a certain cat is not making it easy.  He burnt his paws jumping on top of the oven whilst the grill was on - he jumped straight down again, but was back up there a few minutes later after I'd turned it off.  He doesn't seem to learn from experience, just treats everything as a game.   Anyway, I'll try and concentrate ...

I'd forgotten you've played Scotland multiple times independently so it will be easier to separate the figures and see the effects than when they are mixed in with England's.  I haven't tried to calculate recruits to the nearest hundred: if it is +/- 2,000 for the position then I'm happy.  In my restoration I had 100% backing from the Clans, but then I also had the Duke of Argyll on my side (leader of Clan Campbell, the strongest individual Clan in Scotland) so I guess those who would have naturally opposed the Jacobites did not have their historic leaders.  A very small minority did rebel (on religious grounds) and took the Duke of Argyll hostage, but they soon released him and disbanded themselves so no significant harm was done.  What was surprising is that no Highlanders deserted after this (except 700 on Skye who I had carelessly not given orders to or raised into units) despite repeated Spanish/Dutch attempts to bribe them with lots of money.  Lowlanders on the other hand were much more ready to join the enemy.  So perhaps my experience of it was in part as a result of my deliberate policies of supporting the Clan Chiefs and standing behind Highland traditions.

With the war (hopefully) winding down now I haven't tried to raise further Highland levies, but am more interested in economic rejuvenation - they have fought incredibly well and deserve to share the fruits of peace. Since the Highland Chiefs were persecuted under William, I doubt the Highlands would rebel against me in favour of another ruler, but anything can happen in this game.

I guess all the numbers in China are supersized, but yes with a population of 30M, I guess universal education is a long way off.  With 250,000 men in your startup army and presumably several times that number you can expect to call on from other provinces if attacked, you certainly shouldn't need to raise any more troops!  I can see the benefit of Chinese doctors (interesting research into Chinese traditional medicines), perhaps not lawyers, but yes it will take years to get even basic coverage with such high population levels.  For large social projects that benefit the whole of China can you not get other provinces to give you their recruits to make up the shortfall or is that something the Emperor would object to?

With the low population of Scotland, it does make it a little easier to notice even a small reduction in recruit numbers and it has always seemed to have followed the older idea of recruits equalling 0.5% of population at an economy of 5 so predicting from that was always a relatively straight forward process.

The military situation with the Chinese provinces at the start of a game does, perhaps surprisingly, require a lot of recruits for the military.  You start only with infantry and cavalry so you need to build up rockets, artillery, FC, watches, etc and a navy is essential for a Chinese position.  I would go as far as to say with a  Chinese position, a fleet is essential as one is for England.  In addition, China does need a lot of garrisoning given the number of towns it has; even with token garrison forces in a small portion of your towns, a big chunk of your army is gone in China.  Other issues are Chinese positions tend to start completely unfortified (even with Scotland I started with Edinburgh city walls and Edinburgh castle) and only a handful of infantry have firearms.
While you are (hopefully) correct that in a crisis the other provinces militaries will assist you, one issue is that it is very rare for a game to have more than one province active and that is Kwantung.  At the risk of stating the obvious, with many of the European positions, after a few years they have been played at least once, possibly several players have tried it out.  So if you pick up a position a few years into a game, someone will have worked on the military-you may not like what they have done, but at least some units will have been drilled, worked on, improved, etc  This won't apply to the other Chinese provinces so in a crisis yes you might have a million extra troops but they will be undriled, with very few firearms, no artillery, no fleets, etc.  Maybe numbers alone would be enough but I sometimes feel I might be better off with my smaller but drilled, fire-armed equipped, armies.

Unfortunately I have found out that recruiting from other provinces is not allowed-again like Scotland I have played China in different games and this is something that has become stricter in later games.  I only tried it once in G9, got a stern telling off from the Emperor and won't be doing it again (think that cost me 2 honour points).  End of the day though, it is more "more recruits would be nice" than "I need more recruits".  Frankly my economy is strong enough that I could go with the expensive option, open a load of orphanages and get a couple of thousand more recruits that way,

On doctors, lawyers, etc, i do tend to go for the whole lot; I feel I need a good judiciary as well as a good medical service but I also go for vets and efficient civil services (the latter has led to a reduction in government expenditure).  I can understand why you may not see lawyers as a priority but it is one of those intangible things I have picked up on in the various games, with a Chinese position if you are seen to be enforcing good governance (though administrators and lawyers) you seem to do better; plus you only need 3,000 lawyers to have a fair legal service compared with 30,000 doctors so it is a more achievable early target to set.

Jason2 wrote:With the low population of Scotland, it does make it a little easier to notice even a small reduction in recruit numbers and it has always seemed to have followed the older idea of recruits equalling 0.5% of population at an economy of 5 so predicting from that was always a relatively straight forward process.

Just as an experiment I've tried applying this formula to England's recruits.  I don't want to give too much away here, but adjusting for famine losses before I took over (1706 was a particularly bad year, which cost the position 495,260 people), the 0.5% population rule gave me 12% less than actual recruits.  This was consistent with a recovering economy throughout most of last year.  So notwithstanding Richard's reply to you, perhaps the long term average does trend to the 0.5% rule for a combined England/Scotland?

Must admit I have found tax revenue the easiest to predict which might sound odd given it is partly based on population.  The figures for population may well be distorted slightly because in nearly every year there have been adjustments for colonial transfers or other arrangements so it is rare for there to be consistency in the position.

It is certainly a challenge for an independent Scotland with low recruit numbers, to nation build and improve EH without denying yourself the recruits you need to do so.

Jason2 wrote:The military situation with the Chinese provinces at the start of a game does, perhaps surprisingly, require a lot of recruits for the military.  You start only with infantry and cavalry so you need to build up rockets, artillery, FC, watches, etc and a navy is essential for a Chinese position.  I would go as far as to say with a  Chinese position, a fleet is essential as one is for England.  In addition, China does need a lot of garrisoning given the number of towns it has; even with token garrison forces in a small portion of your towns, a big chunk of your army is gone in China.  Other issues are Chinese positions tend to start completely unfortified (even with Scotland I started with Edinburgh city walls and Edinburgh castle) and only a handful of infantry have firearms.

At the risk of sounding particularly dense, why is a navy essential for a Chinese position?  Is China plagued by pirates?

I can see why England and other colonial powers need navies to protect long distance trade and safely escort troops etc, but surely China is more similar to Austria from a trade perspective - a large connected land mass with no overseas colonies, most trade being internal with external trade carried on foreign ships protected by their own navies? And more similar to France from a tax perspective - large population, so more dependent upon tax revenue than trade revenue anyway?

England, being a trading nation should earn more from overseas trade than it raises in tax, so with trade being so critical a navy is essential for England.

I don't know whether this rule of thumb applies in the other positions you have played, but I have tended to find that the upkeep for starting armed forces tends to be covered by initial income, so since you have 250,000 men you must have considerable tax income to cover it. Of course in positions I have picked up after others have messed around with them, this rule doesn't hold - England was running a huge (£8M/year) deficit after a previous player had abolished taxes and Parliament wouldn't raise them again for nearly 2 years after I joined.

Jason2 wrote:While you are (hopefully) correct that in a crisis the other provinces' militaries will assist you, one issue is that it is very rare for a game to have more than one province active and that is Kwantung.  At the risk of stating the obvious, with many of the European positions, after a few years they have been played at least once, possibly several players have tried it out.  So if you pick up a position a few years into a game, someone will have worked on the military-you may not like what they have done, but at least some units will have been drilled, worked on, improved, etc  This won't apply to the other Chinese provinces so in a crisis yes you might have a million extra troops but they will be undrilled, with very few firearms, no artillery, no fleets, etc.  Maybe numbers alone would be enough but I sometimes feel I might be better off with my smaller but drilled, fire-armed equipped, armies.

I take the point about the dangers of inactive neighbours, but is that not also a positive in that you are less likely to be attacked and consequently don't need to focus on training troops or garrisoning towns?  I'll admit to having done some dopey things in LGDR over the years, but not even I would consider attacking China!  You stated you have 250,000 troops in your own province, so who do you think is likely to send a strong enough force to make serious inroads into your territory?  A small European force might attack and seize a port, but they could never hope to hold it against a fraction of your troops.  I will accept such an attack will be a costly irritation, but there cannot be any serious attempt to invade China by a European power?  An attack from India may be  slightly more dangerous, but unless the player had spent years preparing and enjoyed special training from European powers, I would be still surprised if China was not able to repel the invasion.  

Jason2 wrote:Unfortunately I have found out that recruiting from other provinces is not allowed-again like Scotland I have played China in different games and this is something that has become stricter in later games.  I only tried it once in G9, got a stern telling off from the Emperor and won't be doing it again (think that cost me 2 honour points).

Don't know whether to laugh or cry ... a stern telling off only cost you 2 honour points?  The loss of only 2 honour points would have qualified as a good month most of the time for England in G7.

Anyway, it did seem an obvious question to ask, and you've tried it.  I suppose it is a natural balance to stop one province becoming too powerful?  What about trying to track down Chinese abroad?  I don't know how many Chinese labourers were sent outside China in the period, but certainly in later periods Chinese labour built railways and other major projects in India, Africa and America.

Jason2 wrote: End of the day though, it is more "more recruits would be nice" than "I need more recruits".  Frankly my economy is strong enough that I could go with the expensive option, open a load of orphanages and get a couple of thousand more recruits that way,

Fair enough if it is part of your game objective.

Jason2 wrote:On doctors, lawyers, etc, i do tend to go for the whole lot; I feel I need a good judiciary as well as a good medical service but I also go for vets and efficient civil services (the latter has led to a reduction in government expenditure).  I can understand why you may not see lawyers as a priority but it is one of those intangible things I have picked up on in the various games, with a Chinese position if you are seen to be enforcing good governance (though administrators and lawyers) you seem to do better; plus you only need 3,000 lawyers to have a fair legal service compared with 30,000 doctors so it is a more achievable early target to set.

Yes, I forgot about the benefit to reducing government costs through an efficient civil service.  If those costs are scaled up as other Chinese numbers are then I guess administrators would pay for themselves very quickly.  Never tried vets, but I can see the advantage there.

But lawyers ... ?  Perhaps I am just prejudiced given all the trouble lawyers have caused in England from the Reformation through to October 1713 (current game turn).  A previous player seemed to have encouraged lawyers, but then he made some rather odd choices.  I face a genuine dilemma now the rebel forces have occupied (an undefended) Oxford - there is only 1 building there (legal academy) - it is so tempting to destroy the town by bombardment (and hope I get the legal academy) simply to teach the lawyers a lesson.  I suppose if you are going to do something like codified law which could bring a tangible benefit then it might be worth persevering with them, but I've just found them to be a pain otherwise.  Since part of the pleasure of the game for me is researching history, if I was to try to unify English and Scottish law (for example) it would make that research much more difficult.  I may have to do it in the future, but the current plan is to keep England, Scotland and Ireland separate, respecting their laws and perhaps adopting best practice from each country in the others.

I find the comment about serfdom reducing recruit levels a fascinating one, and imagine a number of nations, mine included, will now take a second look at what would be involved in abolishing serfdom to try to raise recruit levels!

I abolished serfdom in two of my positions. It appears to have worked better with one, rather than the other.

It can have quite an impact economically, so my advice would be to take it carefully and slowly. I go for running a trial run first on the "Crown Estates" which takes a year. During the period it needs to be monitored and then you need to evidence the pluses to both your nobility and church (Both have serfs and both have differing views).

I went for a Tenant Farmer scheme where serfs dont provide service but are allowed to benefit from their own work (they keep crops and can sell) but in return pay a rent.

Nobles/Church gain rent income, serfs gain new found wealth which is good for the economy

I find, balancing the rents in favour of the serfs for the first 5 years works well.

It DOES increase recruits

I have done a lot of work in my game 8 position to improve productivity on farms, so I think over time I'll have the ability to restructure serfdom. The industrial revolution was built on the back of the agricultural revolution and all that.

But, I think anybody who thinks you can just issue one order on your turn and it will all be magically better is in for a nasty surprise.

Serfdom, for all its flaws, had some function and ripping it up without the wherewithal to move to something new is likely to be a mess.

But anybody who wants to just pull the trigger, be my guest. I'm sure the rest of us will be delighted to hear how it goes!

Papa Clement wrote:

Just as an experiment I've tried applying this formula to England's recruits.  I don't want to give too much away here, but adjusting for famine losses before I took over (1706 was a particularly bad year, which cost the position 495,260 people), the 0.5% population rule gave me 12% less than actual recruits.  This was consistent with a recovering economy throughout most of last year.  So notwithstanding Richard's reply to you, perhaps the long term average does trend to the 0.5% rule for a combined England/Scotland?

Must admit I have found tax revenue the easiest to predict which might sound odd given it is partly based on population.  The figures for population may well be distorted slightly because in nearly every year there have been adjustments for colonial transfers or other arrangements so it is rare for there to be consistency in the position.

I have to number crunch and prepare summaries of complex reports and policy statements as part of the day job. often with 2-3 hours warning of a deadline...after that, being able to quickly look over a years worth of game turns and come up with a reasonably accurate prediction of my expected recruit figures is quite easy. I would agree tax is usually easier to predict.

Papa Clement wrote:

At the risk of sounding particularly dense, why is a navy essential for a Chinese position?  Is China plagued by pirates?

I can see why England and other colonial powers need navies to protect long distance trade and safely escort troops etc, but surely China is more similar to Austria from a trade perspective - a large connected land mass with no overseas colonies, most trade being internal with external trade carried on foreign ships protected by their own navies?  And more similar to France from a tax perspective - large population, so more dependent upon tax revenue than trade revenue anyway?

It's not dense at all but you need to think about the geography of the Far East. It's much easier and quicker to move armies, for example, by ship than have them march overland plus piracy is an issues historically (and some of the pirates had massive fleets, we're not talking 20 or 30 ships but 300 or more ships and proper warship-types among them) and there is always the risk of a European power pushing its luck. Do have a look at the published maps of China, 4 of the 5 provinces have long coastlines-if you want to be able to defend them you need (in addition to a lot of coastal fortifications) a strong fleet. Plus, if you want to expand your influences at all a fleet is essential in the Far East. In G8 for example Kwnatung (not played by me) seized Brunei, to deal with pirates...for which a fleet was essential
Chinese trade is an odd one, it's part of the wider Far East trade and I have noticed if you "just" invest in trade, you get an ok return. However in G10 I have invested in trade and also built several hundred liners to support it; as a result my income from trade is now ten times what it was at the same time in other games where I didn't do that and now rather than being a nice addition to tax income, trade income swamps it. Even allowing for the cost of building liners, maintaining a fleet, my income is so many times higher than it was in Chinese positions where I didn't try the naval approach, it's impossible not to accept the importance of foreign trade to China. You have to bear in mind that there was a lot of Chinese trade taking place across the Far East at this time, undertaken by the Chinese and on Chinese ships-despite sometimes the Imperial Court trying to prevent it, so adopting this in game is quite accurate.

Papa Clement wrote:
I take the point about the dangers of inactive neighbours, but is that not also a positive in that you are less likely to be attacked and consequently don't need to focus on training troops or garrisoning towns?  I'll admit to having done some dopey things in LGDR over the years, but not even I would consider attacking China!  You stated you have 250,000 troops in your own province, so who do you think is likely to send a strong enough force to make serious inroads into your territory?  A small European force might attack and seize a port, but they could never hope to hold it against a fraction of your troops.  I will accept such an attack will be a costly irritation, but there cannot be any serious attempt to invade China by a European power?  An attack from India may be  slightly more dangerous, but unless the player had spent years preparing and enjoyed special training from European powers, I would be still surprised if China was not able to repel the invasion.  

With China, the other provinces are very much your team and there is no risk of them attacking you. In early games it was a clearly stated rule you could not attack any other Chinese position; it's not so bluntly stated now but the game setup does preclude one province attacking the other-if for no other reason than a players honour is so dependent on the Emperor and such an attack would be a rebellion against the Emperor and I suspect within 3 game turns you'd be the first player ever to have negative honour.
It is unlikely a European power would risk an attack (it happened in G3 when Spain tried to take Taiwan and I think they spent the next 10 years trying) however again size of the Empire is an issue, it takes for ever for armies to travel around the country. Unless you have a good scattering of garrisons around the country then a foreign raid or even rebellion could be unchallenged for a year or so before an army arrives to defeat it and again I suspect if as a Governor you let a rebellion go unchecked for more than a couple of months, you'll see your honour drop so fast, you couldn't see it with a space telescope.
Interestingly, you tend to find that India and China get on well and support each other in various ways.

Papa Clement wrote:

Don't know whether to laugh or cry ... a stern telling off only cost you 2 honour points?  The loss of only 2 honour points would have qualified as a good month most of the time for England in G7.

Anyway, it did seem an obvious question to ask, and you've tried it.  I suppose it is a natural balance to stop one province becoming too powerful?  What about trying to track down Chinese abroad?  I don't know how many Chinese labourers were sent outside China in the period, but certainly in later periods Chinese labour built railways and other major projects in India, Africa and America.

Ahh, but I would also argue Chinese honour while being relatively simple to understand how to increase, is incredibly hard to increase. The short hand version is it is effectively dependent on you presenting enough nice gifts to the Emperor for him to be pleased with you. If he doesn't like the gift, no honour increase; you lose track of what gifts you've given and a couple of years later give a gift that is similar to one you gave a couple of years ago, no honour increase; if you ask for a private audience with him, you need to offer a gift but you then won't get an honour increase. If I increase my honour by 3 or 4 points a year playing a Chinese position I am doing well...if I am playing a "normal" European position, suddenly lost 10 honour points in one turn, I know enough easy tricks to make that back in less than 6 months.
I suspect it is a balance to stop the position being too powerful, also who many recruits can you relasitically use up in one year. At this time, there aren't any sizeable overseas Chinese populations (effectively forbidden by imperial law), come back in 150 years and try it in Scramble

Papa Clement wrote:

Yes, I forgot about the benefit to reducing government costs through an efficient civil service.  If those costs are scaled up as other Chinese numbers are then I guess administrators would pay for themselves very quickly.  Never tried vets, but I can see the advantage there.

But lawyers ... ?  Perhaps I am just prejudiced given all the trouble lawyers have caused in England from the Reformation through to October 1713 (current game turn).  A previous player seemed to have encouraged lawyers, but then he made some rather odd choices.  I face a genuine dilemma now the rebel forces have occupied (an undefended) Oxford - there is only 1 building there (legal academy) - it is so tempting to destroy the town by bombardment (and hope I get the legal academy) simply to teach the lawyers a lesson.  I suppose if you are going to do something like codified law which could bring a tangible benefit then it might be worth persevering with them, but I've just found them to be a pain otherwise.  Since part of the pleasure of the game for me is researching history, if I was to try to unify English and Scottish law (for example) it would make that research much more difficult.  I may have to do it in the future, but the current plan is to keep England, Scotland and Ireland separate, respecting their laws and perhaps adopting best practice from each country in the others.

I tend to see vets as part of a way of improving farm-healthy farm animals means better productivity (in theory).

On lawyers, I think we can say your experience in G7 is unusual, elsewhere they can have benefits. For example in G10 the only thing that has stopped Stuart from going full corsair and committing mass piracy on every sea, river, boating pond and bath tub is he knows he would then be summoned before a Scottish Court where he and all his crews would be found guilty by the incredibly efficient Scottish legal system and hung in the Grassmarket in Edinburgh until dead...or until the end of the Edinburgh Festival, whichever comes first.
Also, on a more serious note, we are still early in a new dynasty in China, at this stage (due to the way things are seen in China it seems) the new dynasty is seen as noble, honourable and enforcing good government, part of which is a fair legal system so Lawyers Plus usually they do help maintain law and order (again your position in G7 may not see that advantage).
I think trying to unify English and Scottish law might backfire, when you think it still hasn't happened in 2019. I could see that causing a mass uprising among the Scots...unless you gave Scots law primacy? Might be better to recognise and celebrate that difference.

On Oxford, while blowing up lawyers is generally to be encouraged...given Oxford was where Charles I raised his banner, might it not go down too well if you blow it up now? While publicly making efforts not to in any way harm the city that first supported your ancestor against those foul rebels might boost your standing? If it then gets damaged, well it's the fault of those naughty Dutch, not King James after his efforts to lave the city alone?

Jason2 wrote:It's not dense at all but you need to think about the geography of the Far East. It's much easier and quicker to move armies, for example, by ship than have them march overland plus piracy is an issues historically (and some of the pirates had massive fleets, we're not talking 20 or 30 ships but 300 or more ships and proper warship-types among them) and there is always the risk of a European power pushing its luck. Do have a look at the published maps of China, 4 of the 5 provinces have long coastlines-if you want to be able to defend them you need (in addition to a lot of coastal fortifications) a strong fleet. Plus, if you want to expand your influences at all a fleet is essential in the Far East. In G8 for example Kwantung (not played by me) seized Brunei, to deal with pirates...for which a fleet was essential

These are good points and I'll admit you're winning me round to your logic - yes, it does happen occasionally! Certainly it is easier to move armies by sea - it is easier to move just about anything by sea than land in 1700. I suppose yes, if pirate fleets are that size then you will need a sizeable fleet to deal with them. I have never read in newspapers of piracy being on that kind of scale in the Far East, but perhaps that is simply because nobody has played a superscaled Far East pirate successfully? And before anyone suggests it, no I'm not going to try it myself! It takes a certain type to play a pirate and I don't think I could pull it off for any reasonable time.

Isn't there an Imperial Chinese fleet specially to deal with the pirate threat (bit like a centralised Imperial Chinese army)? It seems a bit strange if 4 out of 5 provinces have to deal with pirates individually instead of relying on a central navy.

Jason2 wrote:Chinese trade is an odd one, it's part of the wider Far East trade and I have noticed if you "just" invest in trade, you get an OK return. However in G10 I have invested in trade and also built several hundred liners to support it; as a result my income from trade is now ten times what it was at the same time in other games where I didn't do that and now rather than being a nice addition to tax income, trade income swamps it. Even allowing for the cost of building liners, maintaining a fleet, my income is so many times higher than it was in Chinese positions where I didn't try the naval approach, it's impossible not to accept the importance of foreign trade to China. You have to bear in mind that there was a lot of Chinese trade taking place across the Far East at this time, undertaken by the Chinese and on Chinese ships-despite sometimes the Imperial Court trying to prevent it, so adopting this in game is quite accurate.

That is a very useful observation indeed - I have long appreciated the value of Far East trade (hence my actions in G7 to open it up to English ships). Not always easy to break into it, though, since I have been informed all trade has to go through Kwantung and I hate monopolies! Indeed, English trade policy is based on breaking monopolies and bringing fair competition to markets, which incidentally is also working well. A monopoly on foreign trade should give Kwantung a trade advantage over other provinces so perhaps that contributes to your supersized returns as well as using liners? Of course it also raises the obvious question: how do other Chinese provinces trade with the outside world or is China effectively a huge free trade zone so trade between provinces isn't taxed? Not sure how that would make sense from the Emperor's perspective as surely 'internal Chinese trade' must be a main contribution to the Imperial coffers. Or is there a kind of special 'Imperial tax' applied to all provinces which goes straight to the Emperor a bit like tithes to the Pope?

I do wonder if the pirate threat isn't in some way related to the monopoly - pirates engaging in smuggling on behalf of 3rd parties who want to get their goods into China without going through Kwantung?

I'm pleased to read that liners boost trade significantly as I am going to try that with England (I have so many captured liners I am just waiting until I get the recruits through to recrew them and then send them out to support trade). I thought liners would have a bigger impact on English trade because all England's trade with foreigners has to be by sea (being an island).

Jason2 wrote:With China, the other provinces are very much your team and there is no risk of them attacking you. In early games it was a clearly stated rule you could not attack any other Chinese position; it's not so bluntly stated now but the game setup does preclude one province attacking the other-if for no other reason than a players honour is so dependent on the Emperor and such an attack would be a rebellion against the Emperor and I suspect within 3 game turns you'd be the first player ever to have negative honour.

Contrary to rumours, I can confirm that G7 England's honour never quite turned negative, but at times it was uncomfortably close. I suspect there are a couple of positions in G10 that might win the prize first.

Jason2 wrote:It is unlikely a European power would risk an attack (it happened in G3 when Spain tried to take Taiwan and I think they spent the next 10 years trying) however again size of the Empire is an issue, it takes for ever for armies to travel around the country. Unless you have a good scattering of garrisons around the country then a foreign raid or even rebellion could be unchallenged for a year or so before an army arrives to defeat it and again I suspect if as a Governor you let a rebellion go unchecked for more than a couple of months, you'll see your honour drop so fast, you couldn't see it with a space telescope.
Interestingly, you tend to find that India and China get on well and support each other in various ways.

OK - I can't decide if you are actually confirming my point that there are no likely external enemies who could muster enough troops to take and hold a province. I can see that Taiwan might tempt someone as it is not on the mainland, so yes I suppose you would need to hold a sizeable force in reserve to guard against this.

Internal rebellion I hadn't considered, but would not even the existence of a rebellion be a black mark against a Governor, especially if some of his forces (or those he expected to rely on) joined the rebels? Honour would drop quickly, but wouldn't the Emperor send Imperial troops to quell it or even troops from a neighbouring province if he thought the Governor was in some way culpable for the rebellion (being too harsh or too soft a ruler?)

Jason2 wrote:Ahh, but I would also argue Chinese honour while being relatively simple to understand how to increase, is incredibly hard to increase. The short hand version is it is effectively dependent on you presenting enough nice gifts to the Emperor for him to be pleased with you. If he doesn't like the gift, no honour increase; you lose track of what gifts you've given and a couple of years later give a gift that is similar to one you gave a couple of years ago, no honour increase; if you ask for a private audience with him, you need to offer a gift but you then won't get an honour increase. If I increase my honour by 3 or 4 points a year playing a Chinese position I am doing well...if I am playing a "normal" European position, suddenly lost 10 honour points in one turn, I know enough easy tricks to make that back in less than 6 months.
I suspect it is a balance to stop the position being too powerful, also how many recruits can you realistically use up in one year. At this time, there aren't any sizeable overseas Chinese populations (effectively forbidden by imperial law), come back in 150 years and try it in Scramble

Fair enough.

I don't think I could do Scramble, but for those who might be tempted to interpret the Papacy in a different way, there is always ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Pope

Chinese honour sounds like a nightmare, almost a topic in itself. Difficult for me to comment meaningfully since I'm not very good with European honour. I've long since given up trying to manage King James' honour - I treat it as a bonus if I'm out of the danger zone. Anything which gets it to the heady heights of 6 or more is the equivalent for other players of being top of the honour table! This might change when the war ends, but since honour tends to fall as EH rises and I intend to pay more attention to the economy, I fully expect not to appear on the table for a very long time.

If Chinese honour is dependent upon the Emperor then does it vary with EH in the same way as for other positions or is your economic success a reason why you find it so hard to raise honour?

Jason2 wrote:I tend to see vets as part of a way of improving farm-healthy farm animals means better productivity (in theory).

That makes sense. Have vets improved the chances of producing new breeds from stud farms compared to European positions or is it just a general measure? I have started to train 1,000 vets in G7, but this was mainly to improve horses rather than cows.

Jason2 wrote:On lawyers, I think we can say your experience in G7 is unusual, elsewhere they can have benefits. For example in G10 the only thing that has stopped Stuart from going full corsair and committing mass piracy on every sea, river, boating pond and bath tub is he knows he would then be summoned before a Scottish Court where he and all his crews would be found guilty by the incredibly efficient Scottish legal system and hung in the Grassmarket in Edinburgh until dead...or until the end of the Edinburgh Festival, whichever comes first.

Really? And I thought it was being driven off by some incredibly fine Tuscan naval action? Knowing how Stuart tries to assert phoney legal arguments in G7 and the attempts to sabotage the Imperial Diet in G10, he is quite capable of giving Scottish lawyers the run-around. Was the summons delivered in French, to which ship, in whose navy, flying which flag ... no, couldn't be them they were in dry dock at the time having the blood scrubbed from their decks ... you have evidence of that, if not then it must be a slur on the honour (ahem) of the corsairs, who are not really pirates but representatives of a trading company based in Martinique, but majority owned by a consortium with a registered office somewhere to the north of the south pole and south of the north pole. It took me years in G7 to deal with Spanish-sponsored HWIC, now trading under the name of the Portobello Company, which by now may have a new front - the Trieste-Americas Company. I still haven't fully eliminated them, but I'm getting closer. If you're lucky enough to get him on a day when he has lost track of how many factions he is hiding behind you might just be able to make something stick, until of course you realise that he's bribed the jury to let him off anyway. If Scottish lawyers will accept a tip - don't waste time bringing them to trial until you have obtained a solid confession (cowards tend to talk freely if forced to sit on a comfy chair), then after publicising the trial in advance, switch location, judge and jury and shoot them before you hang them, decapitating them when you bring them down just to make sure he won't make them appear somewhere else.

Jason2 wrote:Also, on a more serious note, we are still early in a new dynasty in China, at this stage (due to the way things are seen in China it seems) the new dynasty is seen as noble, honourable and enforcing good government, part of which is a fair legal system so Lawyers Plus usually they do help maintain law and order (again your position in G7 may not see that advantage).

I'm very keen on law and order in G7, just not bolshi lawyers who think they should make the law up and re-run the English Civil War. In case the uninitiated are unaware when I took on England I had a Parliament which had been bribed to abolish all taxes (which sent EH through the roof and of course recruits down); further bribes ensured MPs would not meet to pass any laws (which stopped me collecting taxes), and lawyers who were conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, so every time I arrested spies who were handing out the bribes they were freed on a 'technicality' (another bribe?) and the whole thing started again. More agents or characters ("Mayors") appeared who would quosh convictions or order releases without my judges stopping them. After I sorted that, attention turned to the prisons and a 'commissioner for prisoners' appeared (another character - former Spanish spy sent by you know who), who although he failed to get the prisoners released, seemed to adopt a strategy of nagging me into submission. It didn't work - said commissioner himself ended up in prison, for contempt of court. He then petitioned the Pope to put pressure on me to release him. That didn't work either, but I eventually released him when he served his sentence and he fled abroad to continue his campaign against me. None of this (of course) counts as "undermining" me under the Treaty of Scotland, in Spanish eyes, but then Spain's version of that Treaty seems to have been through the shredder and stuck back together with some strips upside down. I'm sure the main reason he signed it was so he could argue about its interpretation and use it to cause as much trouble as he could or annoy me so much that I would set it aside.

I imagine that had China been subject to this level of interference, the Emperor would be wondering just what kind of shambolic administration you were running. No number of lawyers would have prevented this - I contend they would probably have played right into his hands by paralysing the law. You can now perhaps see why I have a much more favourable impression of night soil men than I do lawyers!

Jason2 wrote:I think trying to unify English and Scottish law might backfire, when you think it still hasn't happened in 2019. I could see that causing a mass uprising among the Scots...unless you gave Scots law primacy? Might be better to recognise and celebrate that difference.

It could still have some benefits, though ... Welsh law was merged with English law under the Tudors and there wasn't a great difficulty. I think it is one of those things that if it is going to happen it needs doing quickly, but by the 19th century the body of law had grown so much it was increasingly impractical.

Of course there is one overriding advantage - I could force all those Scottish lawyers to retrain or be returned to the recruit pool where I could use them as something much more productive to society (night soil men?)

Jason2 wrote:On Oxford, while blowing up lawyers is generally to be encouraged...given Oxford was where Charles I raised his banner, might it not go down too well if you blow it up now? While publicly making efforts not to in any way harm the city that first supported your ancestor against those foul rebels might boost your standing? If it then gets damaged, well it's the fault of those naughty Dutch, not King James after his efforts to leave the city alone?

Almost. King Charles raised his standard at Nottingham; his Parliament met at Oxford. Blowing up (or otherwise demolishing) Parliaments also has its appeal. It was one of the most popular things I ever did in G7 bringing me a significant boost in honour. I like to think the GM found it rather amusing. But what else was I to do when most of the staff were enemy spies?

It is true, though, that Oxford was a major Royalist city so I do accept the gist of your point. The trouble is that you can't just equate loyalty in the Civil War to loyalty to my character in 1713. A better match occurs if you look at towns or areas which suffered under Cromwell and William (especially in Ireland and Scotland) - these are certainly friendly areas for me. The same goes for Catholic areas such as Aberdeen, Northumbria, Lancashire and Wales. My natural support tends to weaken across much of the south, though oddly Bristol and Southampton are very loyal as is Hastings (after my victory over Austrian/Spanish forces). It has taken some time, but London generally is supportive. But Oxford ... I'm really not sure about. It is a strongly Tory town, but not all Tories are Jacobites, nor Jacobites Tories (another popular misconception). After being "killed" in a duel in Reading in 1705, Churchill was able to go into hiding on his estates near Oxford, reappearing with the Dutch/Spanish forces when they landed at Berwick. And on a personal level I've never liked Oxford: much prefer Cambridge. Perhaps it is partly the landscape, but to me study/thought requires space and light which Cambridge has and Oxford doesn't. Oxford is a bit like trying to hit moving ducks on a fairground - a place you go to absorb things rather than to reflect on them. It would really hurt if I had to destroy Cambridge, but I just don't have that feeling about Oxford. I realise that doesn't fit the Civil War parallel, but somehow I can't imagine Cromwell coming from Oxford - it had to be somewhere like Cambridge which allowed him to reflect and form his thoughts.

Anyway, I've sent my G7 turn back now so I won't give away what I have decided to do.

As I see it the number of recruits are based on total population & two other factors:

- The percentage of its male population surplus to that need  needed produce the food and other needs of its socity.

This means that as herding animals and the like need a lot less people than intensive crop farming and the Steppe Tribes or Highland Scots can mobolize a much higher percentage of the population for war than the rice growing population of China.  But against this the much lower food production capacity of herders and the like means that their over all population is limited and surplus population will have to move (take up merc service) or starve.

It also means that if you can produce more food and the like with fewer men due to improved ploughs, higher crop yields etc then in theory you have more surplus  "recruits"

- The next factor is how many of your surplus population can be "recruited" and here states and societies varied a lot.  Due to its vast areas and poorly developed administration Russia was very ineffective in this respect while Prussia and Sweden were very effective at gathering up every possible recruit.  While Manchu China, Moghul India and the Ottomans being viewed as foreign invaders or religious foes are also limited by "Social" factors......esp the need to keep a loyal Manchu or Muslim majority in the armed forces.

I suspect that the overall size of Manchu China's forces and its naval development was limited not so much by the total population of China or lack of shipbuilding capacity but by the political need to make sure Manchu Banners outnumbered native Han banners and the Manchu did not like sailing.  Even as late as the 1840's Opium wars while some Manchu garrisons slughtered their families and fought to the death the majority of the population showed very little interest in a conflict between the Manchu and the British.

In our period European powers are no danger to Manchu control of China.........the possible in game threats are "internal" (probably a Waka player taking up the cause of the Ming and working at it for years) or Nipon.

Just before one game foldered the Nipon player had finally made his move and invaded Korea.  Looks like mission impossible but if the Nipon player took his time and built up the Wako/internal problems and secured steppe allies before sending in his highly drilled and equiped troops into battle it might be interesting.  Have visons of Lord Fong being ordered by the Emperor to sort out a small Wako problem in Korea and suddenly faced with 150,000 Samuri backing a Ming Pretender to the Imperial Throne.   (Think Jacobite revolt backed by a French Army with added Dragons!)

Ref G7 and recruiting by both sides in the British Isles (esp Scotland) which seems to be higher than normal even with tanked economic health. I do wonder if in such circumstances the percentage of recruits goes up with people who would not normally be willing to fight in the Kings Army now willing to volunteer for the White Rose or Scots freedom.

Which leaves open the possibilty of "recruiting" for specific in game purposes being more successful than general recruiting. In G7 Spain has done this in Italy.......no one seemed interested in general recruitment by on offer to study at the world famous University of Pavia obtained interest. Half the Students then returned home while others when off to legal & Church posts elsewhere.

No doubt what is viewed as the King of Spain and his Italian Queen being "nice" and trying to spread the enlightenment across the globe
while be viewed in London as another dastardly plot to to help corner the market by getting everyone to adopt a Spanish code of commercial law! Would point out its a Italian Code, the Weights & Measures are Dutch. The Portobello company was set up by the HWIC as a subsidary to trade with the Spanish America's and the Trieste Company and its profits are Austrian. A gift from his 2nd son to his dear old Dad!

In much the same way as Spain signed the Treaty of Scotland with France in G7 to get the Austrians out of a hole.

Stuart Bailey wrote:As I see it the number of recruits are based on total population & two other factors:

- The percentage of its male population surplus to that need needed produce the food and other needs of its society.

This means that as herding animals and the like need a lot less people than intensive crop farming and the Steppe Tribes or Highland Scots can mobilize a much higher percentage of the population for war than the rice growing population of China. But against this the much lower food production capacity of herders and the like means that their over all population is limited and surplus population will have to move (take up merc service) or starve.

It also means that if you can produce more food and the like with fewer men due to improved ploughs, higher crop yields etc then in theory you have more surplus "recruits"

Makes sense to me, but has anyone who has introduced improved ploughs seen an increase in recruits or is there something more which has to be ordered to achieve this in game?

I would add, though, that one of the odd things I have found about Scotland is that the towns tend to be small compared to English towns. This could be because England has more arable compared to Scotland where cattle rearing is greater. But although cattle may not need as much grain, provision must still be made for winter feed.

Does investment in cattle (for example) increase the demand for grain and therefore one cancels the other out? If so then perhaps this is simply one factor included in the inverse relationship between EH and recruit numbers.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- The next factor is how many of your surplus population can be "recruited" and here states and societies varied a lot. Due to its vast areas and poorly developed administration Russia was very ineffective in this respect while Prussia and Sweden were very effective at gathering up every possible recruit. While Manchu China, Moghul India and the Ottomans being viewed as foreign invaders or religious foes are also limited by "Social" factors......esp the need to keep a loyal Manchu or Muslim majority in the armed forces.

I suspect that the overall size of Manchu China's forces and its naval development was limited not so much by the total population of China or lack of shipbuilding capacity but by the political need to make sure Manchu Banners outnumbered native Han banners and the Manchu did not like sailing. Even as late as the 1840's Opium wars while some Manchu garrisons slaughtered their families and fought to the death the majority of the population showed very little interest in a conflict between the Manchu and the British.

This probably explains why recruits are only a tiny proportion of the population in India. Another Indian-specific issue could be the quality of their cattle herds was low, so switching to cattle would not in itself improve available recruit numbers?

Jason2 knows more about China than I do - wasn't aware of the Manchu's dislike of sailing, but I suppose that could explain why Jason2 had to build a fleet. Does this also mean that the Chinese fleet fights at a disadvantage (possibly as much as the Russian fleet?)

Stuart Bailey wrote:
In our period European powers are no danger to Manchu control of China.........the possible in game threats are "internal" (probably a Waka player taking up the cause of the Ming and working at it for years) or Nipon.

Just before one game folded the Nippon player had finally made his move and invaded Korea. Looks like mission impossible but if the Nippon player took his time and built up the Wako/internal problems and secured steppe allies before sending in his highly drilled and equipped troops into battle it might be interesting. Have visions of Lord Fong being ordered by the Emperor to sort out a small Wako problem in Korea and suddenly faced with 150,000 Samurai backing a Ming Pretender to the Imperial Throne. (Think Jacobite revolt backed by a French Army with added Dragons!)

Hmmm ... so that's where I went wrong: I could have succeeded much more quickly if only I had dragons! Might have worked well in Wales, but it would have been a bit of a propaganda gift for the incumbent English player rallying around the flag of St.George.

More seriously, I suppose Korea is the most likely province to be attacked, but the forces involved would still surely be prohibitive. If we divided the 150,000 samurai into 150F, 200H/D, 150Art, that is 500 units which would require 170L to transport them, plus a protective fleet and supplies. Is Korea actually worth the expense of conquering? Korea does have some unique naval technology so perhaps they are not so averse to the sea as the Manchu?

I seem to remember that China made several attempts to invade Japan before Japan united which seemingly would have favoured China. Japan also tried to invade Korea twice in the 1590s, being repulsed each time as China simply sent reinforcements. They simply could not hold the areas they captured. So although I think it would be a fascinating challenge for Stuart (or another wargamer) to mount a Japanese invasion of China, it sounds impossible to me.

Trying to work out why some States like Sweden could field huge forces in terms of their population compared to other states while areas like Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland and North Italy provided so many fighting men for the size of Population and then factor in all of the things which could effect surplus man power would need a huge amount of detailed computer modelling.

So for game purposes I guess its 0.5% of population modified by EH. Perhaps with the 0.5 modified for certain positions to fit historic facts like a lot more Irish, Swiss and Scots troops in armies than would be provided by a basic 0.5%. While other positions get less than 0.5% rather than trying to capture every single factor and change.

Ref the 1590 Invasions of Korea - The end of the wars of re-unification left Japan united under the Shogan and with tens of thousands of veterans with nothing to do. So Hideyoshi decided to get even for the invasions of Japan under Yuan in the 1200's which had been launched from Korea by launching a counter invasion of China via Korea. The fact that China was under a new Dynasty was nothing to a Samurai with a well matured grudge.

The invasions were ended by the death of Hideyoshi and a restart of Japanese civil wars and by the victories of the Korean Navy under Admiral Yi Sunsin who cut Japanese supply lines and destroyed hundreds of ships (inc 450 out of 500 at Noryang). But on land the invaders destroyed the Korean Army and savaged the Ming Troops set to support them.......after Sacheon in Oct 1598 the Japanese sent back 37,000 heads to Japan and Ming Sources indicate that combined Ming and allied losses may have been as high as 80,000.

What could be drawn from this conflict was that under lesser commanders than Admiral Yi the Korean Navy suffered a terrible defeat at Chilchonryang. The land campaigns almost bankrupted the Ming Govt and the terrible losses suffered by its Northern Armies greatly helped the rise of the Manchu. Thus all the new Shogan needs to do is improve the Japanese Navy (mix of sea time as Wako and some nice new imported European canon), Ninga any prospective Military genious Admirals and then on land prove himself on a par with Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu........and offer Lord Fongs head to the Sun Goddess.

Historically, this was always on the Shoganate to do list and their failure to do it was one of the main complaints of the men who restored in Emperor and removed the Shogan in the C19 (and then invaded Korea).

Not saying its not hard ......but like the Russian claim to Constantinople its a challenge and you will gain credit even for a part success.