Trying to make a campaign where the "evil" Empire is going to win and take over the Free Nations and the Free Nations...

Trying to make a campaign where the "evil" Empire is going to win and take over the Free Nations and the Free Nations are fighting valiantly but can't see that it is a losing battle. The Free Nations stubbornly don't want to accept surrender out of principal and it prolongs the war. One of the Empire's most respected generals actually wants the war to end sooner to prevent bloodshed in both sides and is a pretty honorable guy

The PCs are tasked to end the conflict with whatever means nescessary

What would be the best way to start things off?

Establish why the PCs are the only ones who can end this conflict when all the generals and leaders of nations on both sides of the conflict apparently can't do it.

Sounds like the beginning of WWI. If France or even Belgium had surrendered it likely would have saved Europe a lot of bloodshed with a quick German victory. I like WWI too because unlike WWII the Entente and the Central Powers are a lot more morally grey.

I would say start with A lesson on the opening of WWI. Good place to start is Dan Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon part one. Probably don't need to listen to the entire thing but it's a pretty great series regardless.

perhaps the free nation's are losing precisely because they rely on murderhobos to perform their military actions, or because they're currently in peace talks, have a cessation of hostilities, but want to improve their position by sending people who are in no way connected to the military or government to go and sabotage behind enemy lines, or maybe the PCs are the generals of the free nations, and they elect to do the lawful stupid thing and charge at the enemy themselves.

>What would be the best way to start things off?

All Germany needed to do was not touch Belgium, Britain wouldn't have done a thing otherwise.

Great Idea.

I'd say, start by contacting your local university and see if you can arrange for your gaming group to sit in a few classes covering the start of the European colonial period leading up to WWI, make sure it's a good professor too.

It should takes just perhaps half a semester of weekly classes and since you are just listener you don't need to do any tests or assignments. And then afterwards, for a fresh perspective, watch a couple different documentaries on the events leading to the great war.

Have the players go home and come back with a 2 page essay about how that could have all been avoided and how it was the death of the European hegemony and the end of the Belle Epoque, and how it paved the way for American Imperialism and ultimately led to the downfall of western civilizaion (optional). Have a seminar where each player reads a summary of their essay and prepare questions for them ahead of time to clarify central points and encourage other players to make their own questions as well. Encourage debate on different perspectives.

Once you are done, repeat the procedure for WW2. Make sure to highlight difference and similarities throughout the process to show how some elements do seem to be the same, but the whole thing was different. Finally, make a more demanding conclusion essay requiring bibliographical references and things like that.

By the end of the year, your players should be educated enough to start gaming.

That's retarded. Britain would not allow for Germany to become a continental power occupying France. They might delay their attack to take over some french colonies, but that would be it.

Also...NOT taking belgium isn't a 'just' thing. There was a limite number of routes to invade France and Belgium was by far one of the best, strategy wise.

For starters, start muddying the morality waters. Have the free nations of light start doing borderline or straight up evil shit to gain an advantage in the war, like suddenly employing necromancers or making demon pacts, sacrificing the non-contributing portion of the population for power, all because "We must win because those guys are the evil ones!".

Anyways, the two best ways of stopping a war is diplomacy or removing the enemies ability to fight. If diplomacy fails, destroy enemy logistics or turn the civilian population against the army.

I feel like a people's revolt would be more violent than any international war.

Is the PCs generals or statesmen themselves? If the answer is no, then you have no hope.

Either way, helping the Empire is always the most intelligent course of action. Even a tyrannical empire is better than anarchy

> If France or even Belgium had surrendered it likely would have saved Europe a lot of bloodshed with a quick German victory

I love how this is phrased as though it's all France or Belgium's fault, when it was Germany that kept pushing Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia knowing that it would result in war with Russia and France, which is something that the Germans wanted. So alternatively, if Germany hadn't been pushing for a war so hard, this also could have saved Europe a lot of bloodshed.

Germanaboos piss me off immensely.

In the interest of fairness, Gavrilo Princip not being a massive asshole also would have spared Europe a lot of bloodshed.[/quote]

It's almost as if you don't understand why nations go to war

make The PCs double agents or a third party who wants to see the conflict end.

Don’t dwell on “the evil guys aren’t actually evil” angle.

But that's wrong. Immensely wrong. Britain's foreign policy for basically the entire span of its existence was "No one nation can dominate the Continent", as the British way of thinking is that if one nation dominates continental Europe than sooner or later that nation is going to look to Britain.

British foreign policy basically can be summed up as "oppose whoever is strongest among France, Germany, and Russia."

Here, this will help you in all your future endeavors.

>when it was Germany that kept pushing Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia
It really depends on the point of view...

Some could say that what truly caused the war was the Baghdad-berlin railroad, which would make Germany independent from the Suez Canal and greatly advance their industries(which were already better than any other in Europe) and destroy the british-french hegemony in the ME

Implying germany could have defeated the maginot line

>which would make Germany independent from the Suez Canal

No it wouldn't have. Trains cannot carry nearly as much as boats. There's a reason why even today something like 90% of all trade is done over the ocean.

I wasn't defending Germany's role in sparking the war. I'm stating the fact that had Belgium allowed Germany through or the French had kept retreating after the Marne the war would have ended that year.

Easy solution? Drop the magical/fantasy equivalent of a nuke.
There's a difference between "standing up for your rights and dying honorably" and "surrender or we bomb all your cities into dust".
It worked on Japan in WW2 at least.

The Europe of the time was a powder keg just waiting for a spark.
Every country involved was full of nationalist assholes who were quite fine sending people into war as long as it wasn't them personally (or they at least got to be officers).
Partially because they were idiot nationalists and partially because nobody back then really understood the sheer scale and horror of mechanized warfare.
None of them were innocent.

Using a trump pic

Is the Empire actually evil or not? What happens to the people of the conquered states who lose?

>Is the Empire actually evil or not?

Proper empires are always evil, if you have an "empire" that's a lot of mouths to feed and a lot of trade that needs trading for commerce to keep your empire afloat, a benign empire is one that is quickly subsumed by those more aggressive around it. Empires aren't evil because the people running them are all mustache twirling villains, they are evil as a consequence of being an empire as it is defined.

>Proper empires are always evil
>What is Rome?

>Subjugating, raping and butchering for the sake of the polis without regard for anyone but the polis

>Expanding territory just because you want more territory

>Murdering your one true Caesar

>Not evil

>Conquered Gaul because they attacked first
>Conquered Spain and North Africa because they attacked first
>Conquered Egypt because they tried to control Rome but failed
>Conquered Greece because they allied with their most hated enemy, Carthage.


I'll give you Anatolia. They just wanted that sweet, sweet iron.

>Sweeps wanton human trafficking under the pallio and the genocide of Carthage

>Implying Carthage didn't deserve it

Should have genocided them sooner.

>Deserve it
If you're trying to justify a genocide on terms of the deserving, your position in the argument of what is "evil" is already forfeit.

user, haven't you realized that /pol/fags will defend any genocide regardless of context, just because it's the edgy thing to do?

No, I'm not arguing the position of genocide in the specific regarding deserved or undeserved, I'm just saying genocide is an evil thing to do. Just because you recognize that genocide is inherently evil, doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes necessary for the sake of your own interests when it comes to managing an empire. Empires are evil by default because when you rule an empire you must forgo the known "good" for the common "evil". If I have to genocide a neighbor because they have better clay because my people are starving, I'd do it, because I have to manage an empire, but that's doesn't make the act less evil, just more palatable.

Wait which side are the PCs on the free nations, the empire, or do they want both sides to stop fighting for reasons?

>only nationalists start wars

Gee, I never knew. Can you tell me why internationalist multiracial/multiculturalist countries like the USA are the biggest sponsors of wars today?

Conspire with a cabal of corrupt financiers in the Evil Empire to foment a workers' uprising, crippling their industrial capacity when they need it most at the turning point of the war.

.....this is bait, right?

Yeah I think we're missing that. The way OP worded it, I'm left thinking a neutral third party is hiring them to stop the conflict in its entirety. Which I think is a dropped ball. The players should pick a side. Be more interesting that way.