You're in chare of Great Westeros Railways (RAR!)

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, I have no illusions that I can completely prevent the war or wrap it up in one quick coup in King's Landing. At best, I figure I can shut down Cersei and Littledick with minimal losses, put Stannis on the throne, and make a show of force to Renly and the Tyrells sufficient to persuade them to wait for a more favorable season. Greyjoy may or may not try anything, with the realm less weakened and divided. Realistically, Tywin's pride, and the fact that if he acts as he did in canon he's already in a position where the best he can hope for in defeat will be the Wall, will probably still cause him to try to fight (I can see him backing Renly and the Tyrells in this scenario, since putting his grandson on the throne is no longer in the cards). Which means probably several months of warfare minimum before the combined might of the Crownlands, Riverlands, North, and maybe Dorne, backed up by the rails, kicks Tywin's teeth in. And that's pretty much a best case scenario. And then its a few years until Danny comes along, Stannis refuses to bend the knee, Danny refuses to bend the knee, and Danny threatens to burn King's Landing to the ground with dragon fire. The best I can hope for there is to coup Stannis and quickly turn over the Crownlands and the Rail to Danny, but at least half the continent will probably still have to be subdued, and it will probably take at least one demonstration of Danny's dragons on a rebellious army to intimidate them into surrender. And then that will be followed immediately by the White Walkers.

Still, anything I can reasonably do to limit the scope of the cluster fuck is worth doing. There's no point ruling if there's no realm left to rule.

Edit: I actually must add that there is at least one notable exception to the Sun Tzu quote I posted, though to be fair he could not possibly have been aware of it. Some (including, notably, General US Grant) argued that American benefited from a longer civil war, as a shorter war would have resulted in a compromise that left slavery intact, leading to future conflict.

[FaxModem1]

I do need to ask why the hell Stannis on the throne is a good idea. Even assuming he isn't under the Red Witch's spell and isn't burning non-believers and his own children eventually, we're talking about a man who thinks someone smuggling food to him deserves to lose their fingers and then be knighted, as well as an unstable wife who hides her 'disfigured' children because she can't stand to look at them. This is not the foundation of a solid dynasty, but one open to falling apart due to his inability to bend unless it's to supply his own power.

I realize that this post was mostly off-topic, but I have always found fans of Stannis strange, due to his whole ruthlessness and general stubbornness to others, which is a bad combination in a potential king.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do need to ask why the hell Stannis on the throne is a good idea. Even assuming he isn't under the Red Witch's spell and isn't burning non-believers and his own children eventually, we're talking about a man who thinks someone smuggling food to him deserves to lose their fingers and then be knighted, as well as an unstable wife who hides her 'disfigured' children because she can't stand to look at them. This is not the foundation of a solid dynasty, but one open to falling apart due to his inability to bend unless it's to supply his own power.

I realize that this post was mostly off-topic, but I have always found fans of Stannis strange, due to his whole ruthlessness and general stubbornness to others, which is a bad combination in a potential king.

I despise Stannis wank myself (especially the fans who praise Stannis for ruthlessly pursuing the throne while condemning Daenarys for the same). But I feel like he might be the least shitty of many shitty options until Danny shows up. Admittedly, the fact that he'll probably burn Cersei and Jaime's children alive as soon as he takes King's Landing makes him really hard to swallow.

Basically it comes down to: I want to back Ned when shit goes down in King's Landing. Ned will proclaim Stannis the rightful King (and probably promptly regret it the first time Stannis has an innocent person burned). I'm a Stark fan, and unfortunately at this moment in time, that means backing Stannis, unless I can persuade Ned to back someone else. That Stannis has some sense of (admittedly warped) integrity and that I might be able to offer him an alternative to his fire god makes it easier to swallow. But if I could persuade Ned to back Renly instead, I would.

And in any case, I reiterate: Stannis gets thrown under the bus hard the moment Danny shows up with dragons.

Edit: I also feel backing Stannis is the best chance for a short war.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, it would be good to have a back up if Stannis proves too prone to burning people alive (hmm, wasn't the last King deposed for that?), or if his particular sense of justice proves harmful to the interests of the Rail.

Maybe I'll try and get my hands on Jon Snow, and see if I can persuade him to work for me for a while (the Wall will still be there if he changes his mind). Its probably a lost cause, and not having Jon on the Wall might have some very bad effects, but if I have Jon Snow, I can always pull him out and put him on the throne if Stannis becomes a problem. Ned would probably accept Jon as King as well.

[FaxModem1]

Hmm, it would be good to have a back up if Stannis proves too prone to burning people alive (hmm, wasn't the last King deposed for that?), or if his particular sense of justice proves harmful to the interests of the Rail.

Maybe I'll try and get my hands on Jon Snow, and see if I can persuade him to work for me for a while (the Wall will still be there if he changes his mind). Its probably a lost cause, and not having Jon on the Wall might have some very bad effects, but if I have Jon Snow, I can always pull him out and put him on the throne if Stannis becomes a problem. Ned would probably accept Jon as King as well.

Honestly, if you're okay with keeping the old regime, just having Tommen under your tutelage is the key to success, as he's a nice chap and just needs someone to teach him how to actually be a king. That means getting rid of Joffrey, but that would be doing the continent a favor. Doubly so if you can pin it on Littlefinger.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, it would be good to have a back up if Stannis proves too prone to burning people alive (hmm, wasn't the last King deposed for that?), or if his particular sense of justice proves harmful to the interests of the Rail.

Maybe I'll try and get my hands on Jon Snow, and see if I can persuade him to work for me for a while (the Wall will still be there if he changes his mind). Its probably a lost cause, and not having Jon on the Wall might have some very bad effects, but if I have Jon Snow, I can always pull him out and put him on the throne if Stannis becomes a problem. Ned would probably accept Jon as King as well.

Honestly, if you're okay with keeping the old regime, just having Tommen under your tutelage is the key to success, as he's a nice chap and just needs someone to teach him how to actually be a king. That means getting rid of Joffrey, but that would be doing the continent a favor. Doubly so if you can pin it on Littlefinger.

Unfortunately, without some major changes to the political situation, backing any of the incest children means fighting almost everybody else. The only ones who would side with me would be the Lannisters, and I have a laundry list of reasons I don't want to side with them.

Besides, I'm going to ally with Danny when push comes to shove, so I think I'd prefer to prop up a king who I won't feel too bad about backstabbing later. Backstabbing Tomen is like kicking a puppy.

[KraytKing]

A short war would be nice, but I can imagine a long war being good for me personally, and thus Westeros in the long run. A long war gives time for me to cement myself as the reason the victors are the victors, not their own skill.

Or bleed the country dry, leaving it unable to support your rail lines and steam ships and power plants, and leaving it easy pickings for the White Walkers.

The war can't last longer than the book war. Railroad mobility and guns will see to that. And the effect on the smallfolk might be reduced since food can be easily shipped in to sustain an army. They'll still loot enemy towns, but at least the number of wolves butchering Riverlanders will be reduced.

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

But I as an individual can benefit. The globe did not benefit from the world wars, but the United States gained quite a bit. In this case, more power for me translates into better odds for Westeros. I'm sure at some point there is a trade-off, where my single will and depleting foreknowledge is outweighed by the economic destruction. But I don't expect that point will be reached in two or three years of fighting.

If I get myself a proper army, either through training one or hiring sellswords, then I can start taking land by force. I don't necessarily want to keep it, but it will certainly make me look stronger if I'm not just shuttling around the men who do the fighting. And maybe some rebellious lords I do want to annex into railroad holdings. Lannisport, for instance. Anything with coal or iron, to further cheapen production without looking like I'm stealing loot to the average lord, not like annexing gold mines would look.

On capitalism. When I say "capitalist hell," I mean a corporation controlling everything and effectively owning the government. This is hell to me. The reason I want it is because I don't like the Westerosi government stance on many social issues, so until I can replace them outright I'm going to give myself as much power as I can over them. My contingency is to distribute my holdings to a capitalist class because that is a little further along the development timeline than lords.

The notion that there is a "development timeline" consisting of a series of steps that all civilizations must follow in order is a highly questionable one, at best.

That's fair. My reasoning is that if there are property holders other than lords, the lords will lose power. This could lead to a class war, which will also probably lead to more social development. People not beholden to lords can only be a good thing for moving past monarchy and aristocracy.

My goal is to establish a socialist republic. To get there in my lifetime is going to require massive effort and concentrated power, so until I can put the proper steps in place to make sure the people have the will and power necessary, I want to be the ultimate say in everything. And that isn't going to be hard in the years following the war when I have professional soldiers stationed all over the realm with incredibly deadly weapons and a numerical advantage (probably).

Its going to be exceedingly difficult if you needlessly alienate all the lords and the Faith, and bleed the country dry into the bargain. All the technology in the world won't matter if there are no crops being harvested because they've all been burned by raiders, trampled by marching armies, or used to supply the armies into which all the farmers have been conscripted.

I don't see how I would alienate the Faith. Much as I hate and fear religion, I want to tread carefully around them. Lords, on the other hand, need to die. My end goal, once the White Walkers are gone, is a class war that ends with all the lords dead.

I mean, guns are like dragons. How many armies are going to mowed down before everyone else bends the knee, so to speak? Aegon was able to bring Westeros to heel without killing everyone, just burning a couple of armies.

You do raise good points, of course. Crops could be problematic. But I think it's written somewhere that most of the food in the realm comes from the Reach, so if I can keep the fighting to other areas I should be able to at least get by, especially as my infrastructure improves efficiency. And if some people starve, well, oh well. There are enough people, especially if industry can arm them all and get them all north quickly.

I do need to ask why the hell Stannis on the throne is a good idea. Even assuming he isn't under the Red Witch's spell and isn't burning non-believers and his own children eventually, we're talking about a man who thinks someone smuggling food to him deserves to lose their fingers and then be knighted, as well as an unstable wife who hides her 'disfigured' children because she can't stand to look at them. This is not the foundation of a solid dynasty, but one open to falling apart due to his inability to bend unless it's to supply his own power.

I realize that this post was mostly off-topic, but I have always found fans of Stannis strange, due to his whole ruthlessness and general stubbornness to others, which is a bad combination in a potential king.

Yeah, I don't like Stannis either, but he's the most likely to be supported by Ned, and he's the only one I know will resort to magic if he loses. I don't want to die to a shadow by supporting Renly and the Reach, even though the Reach is far more powerful the North and Riverlands. North, Riverlands, and Stormlands together should be able to crush Lannisters pretty quickly, and that would be better than losing Ned, then losing Stormlands when Renly dies, and then having just the Reach to take one Lannister, Stark, and Baratheon.

[The Romulan Republic]

The war can't last longer than the book war.

Never underestimate Westeros's ability to find a way to fuck you over.

Railroad mobility and guns will see to that. And the effect on the smallfolk might be reduced since food can be easily shipped in to sustain an army. They'll still loot enemy towns, but at least the number of wolves butchering Riverlanders will be reduced.

The Rail's ability to transport food is definitely an advantage over canon, but one that depends on your ability to protect the trackways from getting torn up by raiders.

Also, its more the crops not being harvested because too many people have been conscripted, or being actively destroyed or seized by raiders, than mainly worries me. Will the regions away from the front lines be able to feed the entire realm, even with the Rail?

But I as an individual can benefit. The globe did not benefit from the world wars, but the United States gained quite a bit. In this case, more power for me translates into better odds for Westeros. I'm sure at some point there is a trade-off, where my single will and depleting foreknowledge is outweighed by the economic destruction. But I don't expect that point will be reached in two or three years of fighting.

Sure, from a very cynical perspective, a nation or individual can benefit from prolonged war. But...

The US benefited from World War II because it forced the US to mobilize its vast economic potential, and crucially because it crippled their main competitors, while very little of the war was actually fought on US territory. No US cities were subjected to strategic bombing. Millions of US civilians weren't killed. No large or crucial piece of US territory was occupied.

Whereas your power base in this scenario is Westeros, particularly the central region of the Realm where the most intense fighting is likely to be. You might very well benefit from a long war that was contained to the Westerlands, for example, or a long war in Essos that crippled economic rivals. But a Westerosi civil war will be being fought on your home soil, destroying your infrastructure and bleeding your resources and manpower base.

That's fair. My reasoning is that if there are property holders other than lords, the lords will lose power. This could lead to a class war, which will also probably lead to more social development. People not beholden to lords can only be a good thing for moving past monarchy and aristocracy.

Well, that's certainly a goal I can get behind. Although I can't help but feel that your plan is likely to end up mostly just replacing lords with lords in all but name.

I don't see how I would alienate the Faith. Much as I hate and fear religion, I want to tread carefully around them. Lords, on the other hand, need to die. My end goal, once the White Walkers are gone, is a class war that ends with all the lords dead.

Any actions which substantially go against prevailing Westrosi values could alienate the Faith. You'll have to engage in some such acts, but unless you want to fight a religious war, you should choose which ones very carefully.

I mean, guns are like dragons. How many armies are going to mowed down before everyone else bends the knee, so to speak? Aegon was able to bring Westeros to heel without killing everyone, just burning a couple of armies.

How long are you going to maintain a monopoly on guns? Another reason to seek a short war and quickly consolidate your position.

Renly, in particular, I can see adopting fire arms, as he seems less tradition-bound in his outlook than a lot of Westerosi nobility. Stannis will too, of course, since he is incredibly ruthless when it comes to grasping anything that will give him an advantage in taking the throne.

You do raise good points, of course. Crops could be problematic. But I think it's written somewhere that most of the food in the realm comes from the Reach, so if I can keep the fighting to other areas I should be able to at least get by, especially as my infrastructure improves efficiency. And if some people starve, well, oh well. There are enough people, especially if industry can arm them all and get them all north quickly.

That's a big if, especially since if you are fighting Renly, your main opposition will likely be based out of the Reach.

Yeah, I don't like Stannis either, but he's the most likely to be supported by Ned, and he's the only one I know will resort to magic if he loses. I don't want to die to a shadow by supporting Renly and the Reach, even though the Reach is far more powerful the North and Riverlands. North, Riverlands, and Stormlands together should be able to crush Lannisters pretty quickly, and that would be better than losing Ned, then losing Stormlands when Renly dies, and then having just the Reach to take one Lannister, Stark, and Baratheon.

Pretty much, yeah.

Stannis with Melisandra is sufficiently dangerous that your options are pretty much to make him a friend, or try and assassinate him and pray that it succeeds and doesn't get traced back to you.

[The Romulan Republic]

The thing is, also, that I know I'm not a military mastermind or economist. My sole credentials for a leadership position are a few history/political science classes at university that I got shit marks in and barely remember, low-level volunteering on a couple of political campaigns, and one unsuccessful bid for a seat on local council. None of which qualifies me to run a major corporation, or a nation at war. So I wouldn't want to rely on complex plans where I deliberately cause chaos in order to profit from it in the long run. I'm going to keep things as simple as possible, and my plans rely mostly on picking the right allies and trying to make as few mortal enemies as possible, and crushing those few with superior weapons as quickly as possible.

Edit: and all that's not even accounting for being thrust into an unfamiliar culture, the full nuances of which the books/show probably couldn't convey.

That's a big reason to ally with Ned, too. Because at this point in the timeline, he is the ONE powerful man in Westeros who I can be fairly sure will deal with me fairly and honestly. If he doesn't think he can work with me, he'll tell me up front. If I make a deal with Ned, he will keep it unless he has very good reason not to. And if he does feel that he has to go against me, he'll stab me in the front and not in the back. I don't have to be clever or a master of political maneuvering to deal with Ned. I don't need to always watch my back and have contingencies within contingencies. Ned is a straightforward man who I can work with, who can advise me and back me up, who will keep any deal we make as long as I don't do something like threaten his family or innocent children, and who will tell me up front if I'm doing something he cannot support. That is priceless in an ally, especially if you're working in an unfamiliar political system.

[Marko Dash]

if you've got the capability to make locomotives then you have the capability to make cannons, and with modern knowledge and decent steam engines you can make basic (slow) tanks.

[The Romulan Republic]

if you've got the capability to make locomotives then you have the capability to make cannons, and with modern knowledge and decent steam engines you can make basic (slow) tanks.

True, but I want to focus more on upgrades to infrastructure and living standards. Right now, I'm far enough ahead of everyone else militarily that tanks are kind of superfluous, and probably a waste of money I could better spend on other things than building a corporate army at WW1 levels.