Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

We, the People -- A USA Interactive FTM 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.
Senator De Brink, most men at this time are simply not interested in a military career. They are focused on trying to feed their families. We should delay recruiting officers unitl times change and the people support a larger military.

((Our current Volunteer army law results in a waste of 50% of any leader ship investment. It simply is not worth it atm.))
 
Poll:

Isolationist: 6
Allies: 2

As soon as we have co-signers for both budgets, we can vote on those. I also welcome more budgets or other bills, if you've got the notion. Let's change the deadline to Monday at 10 PM CST (-6 GMT) for proposing bills (it was originally Tuesday).
 
Name: Senator Richard D. Sharpe of Washington
Born: 1901 (38 years)
Party: Democrat

Policy ideas:
-- Foreign policy plans: Pragmatic. As we are still feeling the effects of the Great Depression, it is most wise to refrain from getting drawn into conflict until the economy and armed forces are on par with those of our enemies. That being said, we should grasp opportunities to improve relations with like-minded & democratic nations when they present themself. While we desire peace on earth for all, rogue countries and governments must be aware that there is a limit to our tolerance.

-- Budgets for IC: Foremost we should do anything in our power to slay the ghost of the Great Depression. Therefore education, infrastructure and industry should be the main priorities in our policy. Furthermore we should gradually enlarge our armed forces and look to improve our defenses, both domestic and abroad.

-- Budgets for leadership: 1. A large investment in research funding, 2. A steady flow of young, motivated officers for our gradually expanding army, 3. A small but competent intelligence service.

-- Declaring war/signing peace treaties: Declaring war should never been done lightly, so all diplomatic options must first be tried before we can consider this eventuality.

-- Which faction we align ourselves to, if any: We support democratic nations, people and ideas. Thus we align ourselves with those who are like-minded.

-- If one of the Big Four needs to be fired/replaced: Debate on suitable replacements and then pass a vote.

-- Input on our general deployments overseas: Safety of our own soil comes first, but we shall never hesitate to help our allies with both men and material.

-- All decisions and law changes: Education is the best weapon against the ignorance of tyrants and despots.

-- Nukes!: Research them, but only as a deterrent.
 
Draft Budget Proposal 1939

Seeing as we did very well in 1938 I wish to use to bill to propose we keep going in the same direction. 1938 has seen advances for our army that we need to continue in order to reach our full potential. Nations around the world are gearing up for some sort of war and we cannot lack behind. In the case that Japan breaks through China's lines they will turn their eyes somehwere else. We cannot allow them to attack the Dutch East Indies or other regions in Asia. This combined with the Germans threatening peace in Europe means we can't afford to do nothing. Our friends in the United Kingdom and France might need our help sooner rather than later, we should be ready to give it. So I hereby present my budget proposal for 1938:

The area's whereupon I didn't comment can be considered as fine as they are. We needn't change everything.

Leadership:
- Officers: 5.0
- Diplomacy: 0.25
- Espionage: 1.5
- Research: 30.00 (What's left)

Note that the research should be equally devided over all appropriate parties.

Production Plan

Last year saw a heavy advance in our army, we need to continue this advance still if we want our ground forces to be able to strike at full capacity. However we should also be able to use our navy to strike anywhere in the world. Thus ,with slight regret, our Air Force will be the one suffering from this. Hereby I propose the following division of our industrial capacity:

- Upgrades: 0 IC
- Supplies: 0 IC
- Reinforcements: 0.5 IC
- Consumer Goods: 39.36 IC (whatever gives us 0 dissent)

This leaves us with an average of about 127 IC to spend on anything else (correct me if Im wrong) :
- Any buildings and constructions: 35 IC
- Navy: 40 IC
- Army: 40 IC
- Air Force: 13 IC

I shall not do any suggestions on what every department should construct, for it is the appropriate minister who can decide on these matters most effectively.

Conclusion:

This bill will allow us to advance both our internal civilian matters and our army. Within a couple of years we are going to need a powerful force, this will allow us to get one. Please support this bill in order that we can make democracy and freedom possible everywhere in the world!

- Senator John Linton, FL-D
 
Senator Richard D. Sharpe, we seem of like mind. Please take a look at my proposed budget and see if you think you can support it.
Thanks, Senator Richard Newman (R) Georgia


(( I am still interested in the mechanics of using the filibuster here. Can I get a clear answer please?))
 
son of liberty said:
Senator Richard D. Sharpe, we seem of like mind. Please take a look at my proposed budget and see if you think you can support it.
Thanks, Senator Richard Newman (R) Georgia


(( I am still interested in the mechanics of using the filibuster here. Can I get a clear answer please?))
Click to expand...

((So sorry. If the purpose is to use a filibuster to prevent a vote, I'd probably have to disallow it since it would unnecessarily delay the AAR, everyone would get bored, and they'd leave the AAR. If you have an alternate idea for how to use it, let me know via PM so you don't spoil your secret strategy.))
 
Senator de Brink,

I am willing to co-sponsor your bill without any changes. I have wondered when someone would finally propose to upgrade our troops, and not just research. I have also known that we have to increase the number of officers, as it currently is low after all the new divisions ordered.

- Senator Charles Beckendorf, D-MA
 
Avindian said:
((So sorry. If the purpose is to use a filibuster to prevent a vote, I'd probably have to disallow it since it would unnecessarily delay the AAR, everyone would get bored, and they'd leave the AAR. If you have an alternate idea for how to use it, let me know via PM so you don't spoil your secret strategy.))
Click to expand...
((I see it's purpose as forcing some concessions. We don't have enough lively negotiations. While in our senate, 1 senator or a small bloc can stymie legislation to gain some pork for back home. Seems to me we have a lot of meta gaming, and everybody wants to be ready for the war we all know is coming while our senators shouldn't know. Game wise, we are almost to the point where we have to start getting ready; but our senators would not know. In January 39, very little had happened to indicate that we would be involved in the European conflagration.))
 
son of liberty said:
((I see it's purpose as forcing some concessions. We don't have enough lively negotiations. While in our senate, 1 senator or a small bloc can stymie legislation to gain some pork for back home. Seems to me we have a lot of meta gaming, and everybody wants to be ready for the war we all know is coming while our senators shouldn't know. Game wise, we are almost to the point where we have to start getting ready; but our senators would not know. In January 39, very little had happened to indicate that we would be involved in the European conflagration.))
Click to expand...

You have some good points here; here's a suggestion a reader sent me (who promises to join soon!) for how filibusters would work. While we wait for bills to be sponsored, we can talk about this.

"As for the Filibuster issue being discussed a bit, I agree with you to prevent any "delaying" of the AAR during the voting session. I recommend that each Party get one "filibuster" per session where the Nominee can block a part of a bill (not amend and not all of it). They automatically vote Aye to the bill except the excluded part.

Others who vote Aye may vote against the filibuster with a Nay-F or something to that effect. If the bill pass and the majority of the Aye vote against the filibuster, then the bill proceed as written. Otherwise, the bill pass with the blocked part removed.

This way, the AAR doesn't get delayed fully and the "filibuster" is simulated.

Just my little idea."

What does everybody think? If this sounds like a workable mechanic, we'll go ahead and include that in this round of voting. (For our purposes, the "Independents" would be considered one party.) You can either vote Aye, Nay, or offer some additional suggestions.
 
((To override the filibuster should require a super majority, not a simple one or the filibuster would have no effect. Thus without a super majority the filibustered version would be the one that passes.))
 
son of liberty said:
((To override the filibuster should require a super majority, not a simple one or the filibuster would have no effect. Thus without a super majority the filibustered version would be the one that passes.))
Click to expand...

That makes good sense. This could also add another dimension to the AAR, and I'm all for that. So, here's what I imagine the actual framework would be.

1. Every "party" (Independents, Democrats, and Republicans) would have to choose a representative. You can work the process out amongst yourselves, whether it's through election or through just picking the best sort of person. I recognize the danger in making the independents work together, and I'm hoping it might eventually lead into the coalescing of a bonafide third party, like Socialists or something, as those who don't agree are "forced" into another party. We'll see how that plays out.

2. The party leader would then have the power to exercise a "filibuster" on a specific portion of a bill. The bill's authors would either have to remove or amend that portion of the bill or a super majority (2/3rds of the Senators) would vote to override the filibuster.

3. This power could only be invoked once per Session (or six month update) per party.

If anybody has specific objections or suggestions to this mechanic, please do let me know. We won't implement this until everybody's had a chance to look at it. Even if all three bills get co-sponsors (and I think only one has?), we'll still hold off on actual voting for bills until we sort this out.
 
That sounds pretty good.
 
Draft Budget Proposal 1939

The past two years our nations has seen remarkable progress both in military and economic development. For the next fiscal year we must continue in this manner and therefore I propose the following budget :

Leadership:

Officers: 0 Technology should be our primary concern. At this point it would be largely wasteful to spend anything on new officers. However, when we have the ability to chance our laws, we must invest heavily in this sector.
Diplomacy: 0.25 This should be enough for normal trade transactions.
Espionage: 1.0 A small but effective intelligence agency will be sufficient to keep tabs on non-democratic aggressors.
Research: 34.04 remains for efficient study of new technologies.


Technology Plan:

Research efficiency should be our primary concern here. There is no use spending precious leadership on technologies that are too advanced to finish in less than a year. At this point I don't know if any research has been put into the development of naval bombers. Since a war in the Pacific is most likely to happen, I feel naval bombers can help us tremendously in curbing the IJN's naval power. With a few naval bomber squadrons stationed in the Philippines we could effectively block ships free passage from the South China Sea to the Philippine Sea and vice versa.


IC Distribution:

Upgrades: 0 As we will be researching many new designs upgrading should be left until next year when they are complete. There's is no point in upgrading obsolete equipment into less obsolete ones.
Reinforcement: .25 this should cover retirements and any other needs.
Supplies: I suggest allocating more IC into supplies grudually each year, let's say 5.0 IC to familiarize our factories with the manufacturing process.
Consumer Goods: Whatever is required for zero dissent. Currently we need 43.92 IC, but I suggest putting it at 45 IC so we have a little buffer for unexpected events.
Production: Taking into my proposals into consideration I would allocate 15 IC on land, 25 on sea, 20 on air force, 55 on buildings, thus leaving 1.75 IC to spare. The 55 IC for buildings should be divided into factories and naval forts. Some Japanese convoys are bound to slip through our naval blockades and we can't risk losing one of our Pacific islands. That's why I'm suggesting to reinforce a few key positions like Guam, Midway and possibly Seattle and of course provide them with a garrison. 10 IC for forts should be considered to be acceptable, thus leaving 45 IC for other buildings. Furthermore I would advice to spread the density of our industry a bit further by building at least two new factories in Georgia.

These are my suggestions, I look forward to see many of you support it.

Kind regards,

Senator Richard D. Sharpe D-WA
 
This bill has my support and I co-sponsor it.

This is a sterling example of what can be accomplished with across the aisle cooperation. Senator Richard D. Sharpe is a democrat from the great state of Washington. While I am a Republican From the great state of Georgia. When Democrats and Republicans work together, great things can happen.
 
That gives us two bills with supporters; could we have as many as four viable bills?! I can't wait! For those who do have co-sponsors, please PM me a final draft of your bill so I can include them in a later post.

EDIT: Re: filibusters. For those who don't know, filibusters are not part of the US Constitution; they're a procedural rule in Congress. I prefer to interfere as little as possible with solely congressional stuff, but for something that could be this big, I'm going to ask everyone to vote. If Filibusters, as I noted above, do go into effect, they can only affect bills in the final draft stage. Each party would have to choose a leader with the filibuster power as well. Here is the official policy, as I see it.

1. Every "party" (Independents, Democrats, and Republicans) would have to choose a representative. You can work the process out amongst yourselves, whether it's through election or through just picking the best sort of person. I recognize the danger in making the independents work together, and I'm hoping it might eventually lead into the coalescing of a bonafide third party, like Socialists or something, as those who don't agree are "forced" into another party. We'll see how that plays out.

2. The party leader would then have the power to exercise a "filibuster" on a specific portion of a bill. The bill's authors would either have to remove or amend that portion of the bill or a super majority (2/3rds of the Senators) would vote to override the filibuster.

3. This power can only be invoked once per Session (or six month update) per party. They may filibuster one and only one bill.

4. Choosing a leader for each party. If you don't want to vote on it, I'd probably give it the Senator with the most seniority (or the person who's been a Senator the longest). This would be, for your information, Kenzington, D-NY for the Democrats (derahan) and Mount, R-NY for the Republicans (NotFuchs). I'm not sure who it would be for the independents; very few of them have been active.

If anybody has specific objections or suggestions to this mechanic, please do let me know. We won't implement this until everybody's had a chance to look at it. Even if all three bills get co-sponsors (and I think only one has?), we'll still hold off on actual voting for bills until we sort this out.

Actual procedure for filibusters:

1. Bills are in final draft and due to be voted on.
2. Party leader says "I filibuster a vote for such and such a bill until such and such is taken care of."
3. We vote to override the filibuster (or not.) Bills may also be withdrawn for consideration if it gets too nasty by the original co-authors. (Both must agree).
4. After filibusters are dealt with, we go to normal voting procedure.

So, please vote Aye or Nay on filibusters. Bill writers, go ahead and work getting sponsors if you need them. Until filibusters are resolved, we will not continue with voting on bills.
 
Last edited:
"After some thought, I would like to give my support and, if it becomes necessary, offer co-sponsoring of the bill proposed by Senator De-Brink, as I feel it is the best budget for our future development."

~Senator Sarah O'Hanahan, D-OR

(( I'll also vote AYE for the filibusters. ))
 
Last edited:
For the filibusters I will vote Nay.

- Senator Charles Beckendorf, D-MA
 
For the filibusters I will vote Aye.

- Senator Richard Newman (R) GA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back