The US ITTL was already in deep economic crap. The economy was stagnating and politics were radicalizing. THEN, the great depression hits, making it even worse.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Maybe there should be a penalty of taking sides/leaving the Union?
Parties that leave the union or support revolutionary factions AND LOSE the revolution will be banned for one congressional election
Hmm...we need a GLORIOUS party, and I don't see any that are completely so...yourworstnightm has the closest, though. 
Intersting idea. What about this: Before the civil war, there is normal democracy, all parties defend their political interests inside United States. When civil war starts, parties can chose their faction. All parties that are supporting victorious faction(s), stay in game, defeated parties are disbanded. What do you think?
Yeah... thats why I suggested no civil war and instead mod the game to give us other obstacles to deal with.
Indeed here is my input: (based on realpolitik, and your ideas...)
1. No Civil War (unless several conditions must be reached e.g. within 4 years reduction of dissent and growth of IC is so bad that some states revolt)
2. Yourworstnightm has a good idea, we start with 40% dissent just before the elections, we have crappy IC (though base should be above 80 (so we have 5 tech teams))
3. The ruling government acts on things Alexon presents us with. Different choices can be made on let's say several events and points (Foreign, Military, Economics with their ''divisions'' Military in Navy, Land , Air Force etc.)
4. The Ruling government has to listen to the Congress (10+1 members) and the different plans can be voted away leading in rising dissent if the government still pushes through.
5. President makes the final decision and can overrule the cabinet's decision. Also can result in several events...
6. When there is enough dissatisfaction with the ruling government, new elections can be called for or even in a worst case an civil war could happen (or intermediate events like assassinations or other stuff :rofl
This sounds maybe difficult but is quite easy to manage, if you put a maximum on election/decision time and on the different discussions preferrably arguments on all points within 1 message and limiting the parties to 2-3 posts with arguments, counterarguments and final stance (and vote like we choose option A or we choose to only expand Industry and Not Military as an example...)so that the government and others can make decisions.
I also propose enough events instead of the US Civil war (i hope alexon can mod that in/out) with different decisions...that would make it exciting. I also propose that in case of war, several persons could be made commander but that needs to be worked out etc.
Tim
1. No Civil War (unless several conditions must be reached e.g. within 4 years reduction of dissent and growth of IC is so bad that some states revolt)
2. Yourworstnightm has a good idea, we start with 40% dissent just before the elections, we have crappy IC (though base should be above 80 (so we have 5 tech teams
))3. The ruling government acts on things Alexon presents us with. Different choices can be made on let's say several events and points (Foreign, Military, Economics with their ''divisions'' Military in Navy, Land , Air Force etc.)
4. The Ruling government has to listen to the Congress (10+1 members) and the different plans can be voted away leading in rising dissent if the government still pushes through.
5. President makes the final decision and can overrule the cabinet's decision. Also can result in several events...
6. When there is enough dissatisfaction with the ruling government, new elections can be called for or even in a worst case an civil war could happen (or intermediate events like assassinations or other stuff :rofl
This sounds maybe difficult but is quite easy to manage, if you put a maximum on election/decision time and on the different discussions preferrably arguments on all points within 1 message and limiting the parties to 2-3 posts with arguments, counterarguments and final stance (and vote like we choose option A or we choose to only expand Industry and Not Military as an example...)so that the government and others can make decisions.
I also propose enough events instead of the US Civil war (i hope alexon can mod that in/out) with different decisions...that would make it exciting. I also propose that in case of war, several persons could be made commander but that needs to be worked out etc.
Tim
Hmm...we need a GLORIOUS party, and I don't see any that are completely so...yourworstnightm has the closest, though.
If that party could be somehow crossbred with Warhammer 40000 it could be even more glorious.
Then you colud sprinkle your campaign with WH: DW quotes for added GLORY
"Burn the syndie, purge the monarchist, kill the liberal"
So, I was thinking quite a bit yesterday about the rules and I have some suggestions.
First of all - elections. Since we are playing the USA I would suggest Presidential elections every 4, and Congressional elections every 2 years. I would also do them in November, so that gives us a lot of time to campaign and you a whole year to set up the world situation however you want it to be before we take over.
I would have the President appoint a cabinet corresponding to the HOI2 one, and then have cabinet ministers prepare policy and laws. All policies and laws would have to be approved by congress. I would have the Congress have 10 or 20 seats, with each member of the party holding a seat, and any seats that are unfilled by forum members automatically voting the same way the leader of the party votes.
Now, I would require everything to be IC. Parties, speeches, etc. I'm sorry to say, but I feel like the GLORY stuff from Realpolitik, while it was very fun, did not get us much love from the mods. So IC policies, IC parties, IC speeches and debates.
I would also require people to have at least 3 people to form a party. That forces people to band together and discuss rather than everyone just having their own thing. We had way too many parties early on in Realpolitik and it was a mess.
Finally, in elections, I would give everyone 2 votes in congressional elections and 1 in the Presidential ones. No runoffs for Presidents, whoever has the most votes wins. This makes people think ahead of time and form coalitions rather than everyone running and then having to figure things out in the second round.
First of all - elections. Since we are playing the USA I would suggest Presidential elections every 4, and Congressional elections every 2 years. I would also do them in November, so that gives us a lot of time to campaign and you a whole year to set up the world situation however you want it to be before we take over.
I would have the President appoint a cabinet corresponding to the HOI2 one, and then have cabinet ministers prepare policy and laws. All policies and laws would have to be approved by congress. I would have the Congress have 10 or 20 seats, with each member of the party holding a seat, and any seats that are unfilled by forum members automatically voting the same way the leader of the party votes.
Now, I would require everything to be IC. Parties, speeches, etc. I'm sorry to say, but I feel like the GLORY stuff from Realpolitik, while it was very fun, did not get us much love from the mods. So IC policies, IC parties, IC speeches and debates.
I would also require people to have at least 3 people to form a party. That forces people to band together and discuss rather than everyone just having their own thing. We had way too many parties early on in Realpolitik and it was a mess.
Finally, in elections, I would give everyone 2 votes in congressional elections and 1 in the Presidential ones. No runoffs for Presidents, whoever has the most votes wins. This makes people think ahead of time and form coalitions rather than everyone running and then having to figure things out in the second round.
Sounds good. Though, there needs to be a limit on IC stuff as well. Such as no virulent, charged speeches. Everytime one of those popped up, things went downhill. If you can't present your point without slander, don't present it at all.
That is a very good point. Now we just need Alex to accept all of this and we can hopefully start soon.
Im here, in school though and actually getting on the paradox forums is spotty, i will read all of this tonight and approve, as well as post the first preface update.
Alex
Alex
I am just afraid this will be closed down. There will undoubtly be some hot debates since we are doing politics.
Not if we kick everyone out/penalize significantly on their first offense automatically. Something to keep people from going overboard. And if we keep everything IC I hope there won't be the stupid spam that irked the mods so much in Realpolitik.
Perhaps some stricter rule on debate can help this concept?
Alexon will post issues facing the country, after which all parties can give their opinion and each other party may react once to such a post, on which those parties may react once too. This may sound restrictive, but it will effectively make spam impossible. Each party will also have a chance to explain itself, but the shortness of debates (three posts) prevents a debate from degenerating into an ideological fistfight.
Alexon will post issues facing the country, after which all parties can give their opinion and each other party may react once to such a post, on which those parties may react once too. This may sound restrictive, but it will effectively make spam impossible. Each party will also have a chance to explain itself, but the shortness of debates (three posts) prevents a debate from degenerating into an ideological fistfight.
hot debates do not mean name calling, i know from experience that you can have a good debate without some of the sillyness that went on with RP
Notional Secessionist Federation of the West.
(National Populist)
(National Populist)
The NSFW is mainly party devoted to the idea of the Pacific States seceding from the Union. They're a far right organisation with several known links to Paramilitary organisations, including the Idaho Militia Movements, the Oregonian Patriot League and the No-Cal Separation Army.
This organisation has it's own paramilitary movement - as well as a fortified compound about 27 miles south-east of Spokane. The NSFW agitates against the Union saying that in of late, the Herbert Hoover Government has dragged down the West Coast by shackling it to the economic burdens imposed by the effects of the depression. In short, they desire GLORY for Californ-i-a and associated states.
Last edited:
If you keep completely on topic, like something from a highschool(14-18) debate event, it should be fine. I.e., absolutely no virulent adjectives, snarky comments, etc.
I agree with you that it is possible. Unfortunately many debates in Realpolitik didn't go on for too long without ideology clashing. This concept is very unique and good fun, I just would hate to see this AAR go the same way as Realpolitik. That's why I fear strict rules on debate might be neccesary. Your call though.