Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Tukhachevsky's Army and the Politburo (Interactive TFH 4.02) -- Admin thread

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.
Formal Proposal for the Allocation of Leadership for the second semester of 1936

Based on the 1st Revision of the Draft plan, submitted <here> for discussion in the Politburo, the People's Commissariat for Education, proposes the following:

Period A: 2.7.1936 - 17.7.1936
16.00 - Research
0.50 - Espionage
6.31 - Diplomacy

Period B: 17.7.1936 - 1.1.1937
21.00 - Research
0.80 - Espionage
1.01 - Diplomacy

Addendum

I. In case of urgent and un-predictable events which impose a hit on our leadership capacity, all points should be allocated to research.

II. If during Period B there is an urgent requirement in diplomacy, the planners should revert to the plan in Period A as long as the needs in diplomacy remain.

III. If by the end of Period B there is a sudden fall in our intelligence officer's pool, then the planners should revert to the Plan in Period A, with the Diplomacy points being allocated to Espionage.

**Regarding the above states of emergency, it is the absolute responsibility of those implementing the plan to re-allocate the points back to the original state once any emergency is over **.

Signed,

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Yakushev - People's Commissar for Education
 
Comrades,

I think it is time to formalize the process by which we move through our regular Politburo meetings. This should result in less miscommunication and make things easier to follow.

1. All proposals shall be divided into the following groups: Group A (Finance/Education); Group B (Foreign Affairs/NKVD/Defense); Group C (General Staff/other concerns).
2. The Commissars in each group will make initial proposals by a given deadline. ((At this point, you guys move so quick that we don't need to bother with fixing formal deadlines, but things may slow down.))
3. Only the proposals in the proper group can be discussed. Do not get ahead of yourselves and discuss, say, construction before the formal budgets are set.
4. After a reasonable period of discussion ((probably 48 hours)), voting will be opened when the presenter calls for it. ((Just something like "I'm happy with this draft, let's go ahead and vote.))
5. Voting will proceed as normal; once it is complete, we move onto the next group.
6. At present, we will not formally vote on OOBs; it's mostly administrative, and while recommendations are fine, it's my feeling that the less experienced players would just get bored with an extensive discussion of OOBs.

As a one-time proviso, the OOB will be set before proceeding with the Finance budget; if they are going to do a lot of streamlining, it will affect CG production and thus the IC budget.

Stalin

((I am posting this on the OP as well; no formal vote, because this is admin stuff. If you have questions or recommendations, I will alter this as I see fit.))
 
That seems like a well thought out construction that will surely make the debate more transparent, Comrade Stalin. However, do we continue the present vote for the Education proposal?
 
Gen. Marshall said:
That seems like a well thought out construction that will surely make the debate more transparent, Comrade Stalin. However, do we continue the present vote for the Education proposal?
Click to expand...

I had gathered discussion was still proceeding. It is up to Comrade Yakushev if he is satisfied enough with his proposal to call for a vote.
 
Avindian said:
I had gathered discussion was still proceeding. It is up to Comrade Yakushev if he is satisfied enough with his proposal to call for a vote.
Click to expand...

Yes Comrade General Secretary, my <proposal> is formal. Members of the Politburo are welcome to support it or counter it.

As for your description of the decision process, are you sure that one of the typists in the Kremlin has not made a mistake when copying your manuscripts? To me it looks more logical for Group A to include Foreign Affairs/NKVD/Defence and Group B to include Finance/Education.

Finance would be able to prioritise better after Defence has declared their needs, and Education will be able to provide a more reasonable allocation of leadership after Foreign and Internal Affairs have mentioned their plans. Otherwise, we will have to rely on informal channels when making the plans which will generate noise. For example, if I do not have a rough idea of the Intelligence and Diplomatic efforts, how can I work with my staff to attend their needs?

A.Y.
 
Comrade Yakushev,

It is for you and comrade Hrynko to determine the budget, and for other Commissars to spend what you give them. They may make requests of you, but it is ultimately your department and your proposal.

Stalin

((I have two reasons for this: first, it gives you two meaningful roles. Otherwise, they could name their own budgets and you'd have nothing to do but choose between them. Second, this gives an unscrupulous sort the power to marginalize your opponents by denying them funds. ;) I am willing to listen to arguments about doing it the other way - it would probably be more efficient - but this AAR is as much as you folks fighting amongst yourselves for power, prestige, and status as it is 'winning' the game by accomplishing our victory conditions.

You know, like the real Politburo. :p))
 
Dear Comrades

Firstly, I formally vote in favour of Comrade Yakushev's revised budget for the allocation of leadership.

I have sent Comrade NK Rakobolskaja an initial impression of her revised OOB which I commend to you all for consideration. She has sent a reply but unfortunately, I have many versts to travel today so I won't be able to read it for another 12 hours. Depending on our discussions, we may wish to make further submissions regarding the allocation of the 4 new research slots which should become available after 17.VII.36.

I have also noted a significant but not fatal drop in troop numbers so that Reinforcement demand is now about 83IC. I do not want to hit the panic button because we can rebuild quickly if necessary and there is no immediate need for those troops but I ask that Comrades turn their minds as to how this might be addressed in the Financial budget.

Yours fraternally

NF Vatutin (Major General)
NK Stavka
 
Davout said:
I have also noted a significant but not fatal drop in troop numbers so that Reinforcement demand is now about 83IC. I do not want to hit the panic button because we can rebuild quickly if necessary and there is no immediate need for those troops but I ask that Comrades turn their minds as to how this might be addressed in the Financial budget.
Click to expand...
That's a small problem, which is both caused by our recent supply shortage, and our reorganization. With our current budget of 0.70 IC, it'll get solved on it's own.
 
Poll:

Yakushev's proposal: Yakushev, Vatutin, and Yagoda in favor (3 for).

((shierholzer: Right, but we would try to get all fifteen, unless I misunderstand you.))
 
Last edited:
Comrade General Secretary, I suspect the Comrade meant that the only real victory condition is to have survived to the end which is synonymous with coming out on top. A sentiment which I am sure you would support.
 
Davout said:
Comrade General Secretary, I suspect the Comrade meant that the only real victory condition is to have survived to the end which is synonymous with coming out on top. A sentiment which I am sure you would support.
Click to expand...

shierholzer said:
Yep. I meant our VC, not the games.
Click to expand...

Got it. :)
 
I support Comrade Yakushev's Formal LS budget proposal.
 
shierholzer said:
That's a small problem, which is both caused by our recent supply shortage, and our reorganization. With our current budget of 0.70 IC, it'll get solved on it's own.
Click to expand...
((Actually, testing seems to indicate that it will not. I propose that we bump the ic up to 3.0 for a couple of weeks and then drop down to 1.2 which will keep it under control until we adopt a draft. ))
 
Comrade General Secretary and Comrade members and candidate members of the Politburo,

I would like to present you a draft for the allocation of research for the second semester of 1936. The plan consists of 3 parts. The first part lists the first 17 technologies, which were already introduced in the plan of the first semester, as they are already in the queue (same priority), the second part introduces 4 additional research slots in accordance to the leadership allocation plan proposed earlier, the third part discusses some implementation formalities and notes for the Kremlin staff

Notation:
**X**. Technology 1 [Technology 2] [Technology 3]
or
--X--

X. denotes # of research slot. It has nothing to do with priority
* * denote priority technology. Those should be always on the top
- - denote least priority techs. Those should be always on the bottom
(** or -- denote the first and last technologies respectively)
Technology 1 is the technology researched
[ ] are the future technologies for that slots

Research Allocation for 2.7.1936 to 1.1.1937 (Draft 1)

Part A "Ongoing Research" 2.7.1936 - 17.7.1936

--1--. Infantry Warfare 2 [Mass Assault 2]
-2-. Elastic Defence [2]
3. Delay Doctrine [2]
-4-. Central Planning 1 [2]
5. Supply Transportation [Operational Level Organisation]
6. Industrial Production 2 [3] [4]
7. Light Art [Basic Air Machine Gun]
8. Infantry AT [Basic Aero Engine]
*9*. Industrial Efficiency [3] [4]
10. Civil Defence [AT Barrels and Sights]
11. Fighter Pilot Training
12. Fighter Ground
13. AT Ammunition and Muzzle [Art Barrel and Ammunition] [Art Carriage]
-14-. Assault Concentration
*15*. Education 2
16. Interception Tactics
**17**. Medium Tank Brigade [Art Carriage]

Part B "Extended Research" 2.7.1936 - 1.1.1937

*18*. Supply Production 2 [3] [4]
*19*. Rare Materials
*20*. Steel Production
-21-. Mobile Warfare

Part C" Instructions for Education Section, Division A: Research, Kremlin. - Internal Memo-

1. All techs should be placed on the list as soon as the Kremlin holds gets this proposal.
2. Once all techs are on the list, techs marked with * * should be placed on top. The last tech to be placed on top should be the one marked with ** **
3. Techs marked with - - should be placed on the bottom. The last tech to be placed on the bottom is the one marked with -- --
4. Once this process is done, every research group should be informed on their targets (( i.e. its ok to unpause ))

Signed,

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Yakushev - People's Commissar for Education
 
Last edited:
New poll:

Poll:

Yakushev's LS proposal: Yakushev, Vatutin, Yagoda, Glazkov, Gey in favor (5 for).
Yakushev's tech proposal: Yakushev and Gey (2 for).

((Tapscott, I assume you are voting in favor of both proposals.))

((Admin hat on.))

I have decided to add a new wrinkle to the AAR to stir the pot. If any vote is defeated by a measure of 2:1 (excluding abstentions), the person proposing the measure will lose their seniority (i.e., bumped to the end of the full Politburo list), as it is a clear lack of confidence in that person. In other words, if you lose a vote, say, by 6:3, you lose your seniority. (Possible combinations include 2:1, 4:2, and 6:3, depending on abstentions.) This should ensure people are careful with their proposals, while simultaneously providing a way to keep things interesting. This rule goes into effect after the voting on Comrade Yakushev's proposals is complete.

((Sorry, Sakura_F... I probably just put a great big target on your head. :p))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back