political overview-2
DOMESTIC POLICY OVERVIEW-2
Heads
Head of State
Really useless in peace-time. Even hampering.
Head of Government
Not bad! -10%CGN is really good, specially in peace-time.
Unfortunately, we can't change this heads easy. But the good news - Elections will become in June'36. Let's see!
Changing Ministers - Is the game is worth the candle? Not always!
Changing your ministers rise your dissent by 1%(or even 2%).
With current rate it will take 6(12) days to recover. And it will waste about 200(400) ICdays
It is also well-known, that it's better to make changes not all at the same time. Changing, lower dissent, another changing, lower dissent -- this method will save you some ICdays.
So, we should be very careful with cabinet reshuffling.
Foreign Minister
Urzaiz Cadaval is obviously useless!
Osorio y Gallardo will save money in negotiations with Commies and Nazies (Open negotiations, Join Alliance and Guarantee Independence is the most useful), but will not help with Democracies.
Martinez de Velasco will save many in Influence Nation(useful) and Demanding Territory(do you remember Gibraltar? But it's not very probable to return it soon)
Is it worth to change? Yes! Who? Martinez de Velasco! When? Feb-Mar'36!
2% dissent = lost 400 ICd = 1600 supp = about 300-500$
My estimation of numbers of diplomatic actions (until Elections in June):Open Negotiations 3-4 times
Join Alliance not more than 3-4 times (hope)
Influence Nation minimum 15-20 times. (We have not very good relations with other countries, e.g. Germany -49, USSR -11, UK -9. We need about +150 for good probability Joining Alliance)
Guarantee Independence 0 times. I doubt it could be useful so soon.
Demand Territory 0 times. I doubt it could be useful so soon.
Osorio y Gallardo usefulness:
ON*4(not with democracies) Current cost = 33$. New cost = 9$. Profit = 24$. Net profit = about 100$
JA*4(not with democracies) Current cost = 33$ New cost = 17$. Profit = 16$. Net profit 64$(hope).
IN*15+(any country) Current cost = 143$ New cost = 110$. Profit = 33$. Net profit >500$(hope).
Total Osorio y Gallardo profit >600$ (assuming expenses >1754$)
Martinez de Velasco usefulness:
IN(any country) Current cost = 143$ New cost = 73$. Profit = 70$. Net profit >1000$(hope).
Total Martinez de Velasco profit >1000$ (assuming expenses >1100$)
Сheck our financial possibilities. We'll have constant income about +200 in a month. So it's about 1000$ before Elections. As we see, Osorio could easily run out our budget.
So, obviously Martinez beats his opponents.
When we should reshuffle?
Martinez could be used 4 times in a month. So, we need about 300$ in a month, and about 1200$ for rising realtions with one alliance leader. Our income is 200$, so we need 6 month to get this sum. So, we could get Martinez after 2 month. Maybe after 1 month, considering only 5 month before Elections.
Armaments Minister
Mendizabal y Bonilla is good enough.
Yanguas Messfa is very good
Calvo-Sotelo is very good also
Is it worth to change? Not now and soon!
Calvo effect is lowering CGN by 1,76. It will increase dissent lowering rate by 0.01 (from -0.17 to -0.18). Note: Calvo will not affect money production, while Yanguas do.
30/0.17=176 days (Mendizabal)
32/0.18=177 days
Effect is quite equal. But current minister gives also research bonus.
Yanguas effect will not increase dissent lowering, but will increase money
2% = 400 ICdays lost
money profit will be about 150$ or about 100ICdays.
So, not very profitable.
Security Minister
Martinez de Velasco obviously better than Portela Valladares.
But the reason to keep current is the same, as in previous post. if -10% CGN is not profitable, then -5%(additional) is not profitable too.
Note, we still assuming radical dissent-lowering strategy and consider all profits from this point of view.
Is it worth to change? Not now and soon!
Head of Intelligence
Note: there is another Logistic Specialist in the list. Hidden.
Is it worth to change? Not now and soon!
Obviously we do not need Army Int.
Also, Samper Ibanez is not useful, because we will influence not small coutries, but giants.
IC bonus is not good enough too.
OTOH, research bonus is very useful.
Chief of Staff
Is it worth to change? No!
obviously.
Chief of Army
Note: there are another three candidates hidden, but it's not important.
Is it worth to change? No!
Obviously, the question is about Guns-and-Butter doctrine. -15% supply.
1% dissent = 200 ICd lost. = 800 supply lost
Let X be total amount of supply used by our army in the whole period. Then, X*0.15 is amount of saved supply by Azana Diaz.
If X*0.15>800, then Azana Diaz is profitable. So X should be >5300 (nearly)
Our period of recovering is about half-year, so daily supply consumption should be >30(nearly).
Let's check our army. Our troops need only 18.7 supplies daily. (Note, this number will be even lower with Logistic Wizards)
So, Azana Diaz is not profitable.
Unexpected, isn't it? )
Chief of Navy and Chief of Air Force
Is it worth to change? No!
Obviously, not interesting for us, until we build units or fight.
Cabinet Reshuffle. Conclusion.
Since dissent, raised after any changing, have significant cost, most of changing are not profitable or even useless within the borders of our strategy for the next half-year.
As a rule of thumb, you can assume, that
changing is worth to do it only for long-periods and for significant effects.
Examples, when you should NOT change your ministers:
Biased Intellectual if you are not going make a lot of dip actions
Administrative Genius until you build a lot
Gun-and-Butter proponent until you forces are huge
Any attacker/defender until you are fighting
As for me, this results is very unexpected, 'cause usually I like to change ministers in the most beginning for candidates that I like. As shown above, this tactics could be unprofitable.