Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Shadow of the Andes - An Interactive Chilean AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
((I didn't know which party to choose, so here goes:))

Party: Republicanos
Candidate: Cortez
Coalition: Abstain
Coalition Candidate: Cortez
Reform: None
Separation of State and Military Act: No
Military Command Reform Act: Yes
 
Party: FNT
Candidate: Osvaldo Tamiuszski
Coalition: No Coalition
Coalition Candidate: Osvaldo Tamiuszski
Reform: Proportional Representation
Separation of State and Military Act: No
Military Command Reform Act: No
 
Last edited:
Party: Partido Liberales Nuevos
Candidate: Carlos Andonie
Coalition: Republicanos
Coalition Candidate: Carlos Andonie
Reform: Proportional Representation, Non-Secret Ballots
Separation of State and Military Act: No
Military Command Reform Act: Abstain
 
Last edited:
Dyranum said:
Zepeda, I think you forget a thing: the ministers command forces far smaller than the generals in the event of a coup attempt. The 5 ministers opposing a coup of 5 Generals will fail. Completely. Also, this proposal is not made by me due to the failure of an FNT victory. On the contrary, it's due to the realisation that the current system is not feasible in the long run.

- Sérgio Gogołów
Click to expand...

(( It's not fun if you don't know what the hell is going on, and get arrested and hung on a coup you thought you had the upper hand but didn't. And it's not about the army, Dyranum. And I think you are forgeting that way back then, in the Badajoz coup, I and Zagoroth had the main army under our control and were actually outnumbering the other generals in what concerns to the armies. But as ThunderHawk explained later, it doesn't matter the amount of troups, but rather the amount of votes you get in a coup. I don't think you were participating in the AAR back then, but the coups work as a votation by the generals and ministers, and whatever side gets the most votes win. It's only in the Junta votations (when there's a dictatorship) that the armies are a factor. So that's why I belive that this bill is going to unbalance the game and ruin it for many. It plainly means that the CoS will have the final say in any coup, since he will have more people backing his vote (as he would be able to appoint both the 5 generals and the minister of war, while the president could only appoint 4 generals, thus unbalancing the system). It's really going to be unfair for anyone. Imagine the Accion Patriotica get the CoS position and want to make a coup. The president would be outnumbered and we'd have another empire. Right now you don't care, because you haven't had the opportunity to get in the cabinet, but those who have find this bill unfair, for it only powers the CoS, when the president gets appointed by popular vote.))
 
EDIT: ((also, sorry TH, but I changed my Coalition candidate from abstain to myself.))

thekinguter said:
(( It's not fun if you don't know what the hell is going on, and get arrested and hung on a coup you thought you had the upper hand but didn't. And it's not about the army, Dyranum. And I think you are forgeting that way back then, in the Badajoz coup, I and Zagoroth had the main army under our control and were actually outnumbering the other generals in what concerns to the armies. But as ThunderHawk explained later, it doesn't matter the amount of troups, but rather the amount of votes you get in a coup. I don't think you were participating in the AAR back then, but the coups work as a votation by the generals and ministers, and whatever side gets the most votes win. It's only in the Junta votations (when there's a dictatorship) that the armies are a factor. So that's why I belive that this bill is going to unbalance the game and ruin it for many. It plainly means that the CoS will have the final say in any coup, since he will have more people backing his vote (as he would be able to appoint both the 5 generals and the minister of war, while the president could only appoint 4 generals, thus unbalancing the system). It's really going to be unfair for anyone. Imagine the Accion Patriotica get the CoS position and want to make a coup. The president would be outnumbered and we'd have another empire. Right now you don't care, because you haven't had the opportunity to get in the cabinet, but those who have find this bill unfair, for it only powers the CoS, when the president gets appointed by popular vote.))
Click to expand...

((Uh, that is wrong. It is not a voting thing, except if all are in favour. TH makes the armies fight against each other and goes from those results. So, the Ministers have no chance as they all only have 1(or was it 2?) brigades each. Also, I was active at that time. Remember Santandera?))
 
I beg for members of the Liberales and Republicanos to unite in a coalition! We have worked together before; we can do it again!
 
Riccardo93 said:
I beg for members of the Liberales and Republicanos to unite in a coalition! We have worked together before; we can do it again!
Click to expand...

((You know, historically, Conservatives and Liberals hate each other. Just found that funny. Why is a Socialist-Liberal coalition not possible, anyway?))
 
Dyranum said:
((You know, historically, Conservatives and Liberals hate each other. Just found that funny. Why is a Socialist-Liberal coalition not possible, anyway?))
Click to expand...

(( Because Liberales and Socialists hate each other. ))
 
Which one is the Military Command Reform Act?

Edit: Never mind.

Party: Liberale
Candidate: Andonie
Coalition: Republicanos
Coalition Leader: Andonie
Separation of State and Military Act: No
Military Command Reform Act: No

The Republicanos candidate for this election holds policies against the very nature of Illustrious Republican Chile, and against the Liberal ideals and laws passed in the 1830's. It is unacceptable to consider forming a coalition with those so against Freedom. However, if the Republicanos choose to return to their Liberal roots, I support them forming under a Coalition with the Illustrious Freedom proposed by Andonie. I can neither support the two bills for Military reform as they put too much power in Congress and the Secretary. I repropose that:

The Chief Minister is replaced in duty by the Minister of War and a Minister of Navy
That the Ministers of War and Navy are proposed by the president, and voted in by Congress
That the Ministers of War and navy have the power to appoint and resign generalships and admiralships
That an admiral or general can only be removed by death, anti-patriotism in the form of Coup, or otherwise considered unable to continue duties
That a vote of no confidence through the senate determine whether a general or admiral can be removed from office for above reasons

This proposal, which is not being voted on (I suppose because I didnt bold it), would create much more separation of power and control over the army.

I call this the Separation of Executive and Military Authority Act
 
Last edited:
((I think Komisha's...))
 
"Senor Aragon, that is the third motion so far on that topic, and all of those motions as very similar. I think we ought to decide on which bill is to be voted on before we start deciding whether we want that bill."

Severiano Miramontes
 
Dyranum said:
((I would suggest that you change the surname of your character as we already have another family called "Alvarez". It's bound to create even more confusion than the Roseno-Romano one))
Click to expand...
((Heh, I was already confused when there was a character with Alvarez as a first name (is that one still around?).))


Party: Republicano
Candidate: Cortez
Coalition: with Liberales
Coalition Candidate:Andonie
Separation of State and Military Act: No
Military Command Reform Act: No (although less emphatically than the SoSaMA)
 
I can agree with that Miramontes, perhaps we should all abstain from this voting on reforms and re-organize for a vote during general president election?
 
Thank you, Governor Alvarez! Perhaps the others will find that a coalition is the only way to defeat the socialists! Now, before the socialists begin whining about my 'distaste for them,' we all despise socialism; I am simply the most vocal about it. With that aside, none of us want socialists to hold the presidency. The best way to ensure we win is to compromise with each other to have a moderate government in power that will incorporate both sides and maintain both a balance and order.
 
And what makes a big-government under Socialists any different from a big-government under Conservatives? You have yet to answer this inquiry which I presented to you a few years ago if I recall correctly.

- Sérgio Gogołów
 
thekinguter said:
(( It's not fun if you don't know what the hell is going on, and get arrested and hung on a coup you thought you had the upper hand but didn't. And it's not about the army, Dyranum. And I think you are forgeting that way back then, in the Badajoz coup, I and Zagoroth had the main army under our control and were actually outnumbering the other generals in what concerns to the armies. But as ThunderHawk explained later, it doesn't matter the amount of troups, but rather the amount of votes you get in a coup. I don't think you were participating in the AAR back then, but the coups work as a votation by the generals and ministers, and whatever side gets the most votes win. It's only in the Junta votations (when there's a dictatorship) that the armies are a factor.
Click to expand...

That is TOTALLY, TOTALLY wrong, thekinguter. Each general and minister commands a certain number of troops (Ministers are based on the mobilization size and the capital stack). I make those troops fight each other in game, and whoever wins the battle wins the coup. It has nothing whatsoever to do with absolute numbers of votes. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT whichever side gets the most votes wins.
 
My answer is this; government would be limited by a coalition between the two. Liberals will oppose a bid government, holding back the conservative's desire for bigger government. As well, both oppose the 'far-reaching,' if that's what you would call them, social reforms (though the liberals and some conservatives may support a few). The government may not be as small as I want, but I have to deal with it, if I want a more limited government than what I'd get with a FNT presidency!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back