C.O.R.E HOI - United States of America

[Sirveri]

Let's see here...

1. More than +5 to Infra? For one bridge? It was decided early on, when the event was first made, that more than 5 was unrealistic, given the abstractions involved in what constitutes infrastructure.

2. The decription is a known issue, but one of low priority, so it keeps falling through the cracks as it were.

3. This should be in the USA thread (for any listening moderator).

4. Right wing slant? Sorry, but you'll have to give some examples of that.

1. Not more than +5, just +5. The reason being that it connects Sausolito to SF. Previously the only way to get there was by ferry, which takes at least an hour and runs on their schedule not yours and is more expensive. After the bridge it takes about 5 minutes depending on traffic AND is cheaper. Not to mention that in order to drive there without taking the ferry it would take... about 8 hours. It opened up a entire new region to the bay economy. The only thing that would come close to ecclipsing the GG bridge would be the completion of the Bay Bridge. As it stands at the moment(today, 6/24/04), if the GG were to be destroyed it would signifigantly damage the economy of this region. Traffic would be forced to flow thru the 580 corridor, and that bridge is only two lanes compared to the three to four that the GG is. That and that bridge is under major renovations and all those cars which are bumper to bumper during rush hour on a four lane high way would be shoved thru the Bay Bridge and the MacArthur maze traffic corridor, which already operate at or above max capacity.

2. Well I figured that much, but figured a reminder would be a good help.

4. My main objection is the application of Reaganomics to the minimum wage event. The establishment of a minimum wage did not 'keep the country mired in the Depression'. Yes, at first it might have cost some people their jobs, but in the end, the remaining people had a increase in purchasing potential and it was this new consumer drive which helped to revitalise the economy. The entire wording of the event is basically that regulation is bad (which is what got us into trouble with Hoover). I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could find more to whine about. I just found it irksome, because from my perspective the slant is pretty obvious

 

[BarMonger]

4. My main objection is the application of Reaganomics to the minimum wage event. The establishment of a minimum wage did not 'keep the country mired in the Depression'. Yes, at first it might have cost some people their jobs, but in the end, the remaining people had a increase in purchasing potential and it was this new consumer drive which helped to revitalise the economy. The entire wording of the event is basically that regulation is bad (which is what got us into trouble with Hoover). I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could find more to whine about. I just found it irksome, because from my perspective the slant is pretty obvious

I find the wording troublesome as well. Why would the "better" option keep the country in the Depression?
I find it difficult for ideological reasons to choose that option when playing as the US, because of the wording

 

[Sirveri]

I find the wording troublesome as well. Why would the "better" option keep the country in the Depression?
I find it difficult for ideological reasons to choose that option when playing as the US, because of the wording

Well there is actually only one option for the event (the effects of which I also disagree with), increase dissent by 1. That event should actually probably play out exactly like the government nationalises private sector event and randomly boost IC in certain provinces due to increased consumer spending. But it's a minor thing, like I said, I just found it irksome and figured I'd up my post count and try and post some actual content.

 

[Ghost_dk]

this thread should be merged with the C.O.R.E. HOI USA thread, gzav

Ghost_dk

 

[JRaup]

1. Not more than +5, just +5. The reason being that it connects Sausolito to SF. Previously the only way to get there was by ferry, which takes at least an hour and runs on their schedule not yours and is more expensive. After the bridge it takes about 5 minutes depending on traffic AND is cheaper. Not to mention that in order to drive there without taking the ferry it would take... about 8 hours. It opened up a entire new region to the bay economy. The only thing that would come close to ecclipsing the GG bridge would be the completion of the Bay Bridge. As it stands at the moment(today, 6/24/04), if the GG were to be destroyed it would signifigantly damage the economy of this region. Traffic would be forced to flow thru the 580 corridor, and that bridge is only two lanes compared to the three to four that the GG is. That and that bridge is under major renovations and all those cars which are bumper to bumper during rush hour on a four lane high way would be shoved thru the Bay Bridge and the MacArthur maze traffic corridor, which already operate at or above max capacity.

2. Well I figured that much, but figured a reminder would be a good help.

4. My main objection is the application of Reaganomics to the minimum wage event. The establishment of a minimum wage did not 'keep the country mired in the Depression'. Yes, at first it might have cost some people their jobs, but in the end, the remaining people had a increase in purchasing potential and it was this new consumer drive which helped to revitalise the economy. The entire wording of the event is basically that regulation is bad (which is what got us into trouble with Hoover). I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could find more to whine about. I just found it irksome, because from my perspective the slant is pretty obvious

1. OK, but the problem as I see it, is that what you describe is modern day metropolitain San Francisco, and not 1930's SF. IIRC, the population in the Bay area was about 1/3 what it is today in the area, so the congestion issues really isn't one. Also, automobile ownership was not yet at even the 50% mark. Add to this the fact that there was no interstate system (that's 1950's era work), and the actual impact of the bridge is further minimalized. If the game went beyond 1948, then I might agree with you, but even then, I'd probably give more credence to the Interstate system than the bridge.

4. IMO the vent works exactly as it should. There is an initial hit to the economy (as happened), which disappears over time (as happened). The event description is written in such a way as to reflect the time period, and what was transpiring at the time, rather than a modernist spin on the events. If you have such an issue with it, offer up a a version of your own. Who knows, it may be included.

 

[Sirveri]

1. OK, but the problem as I see it, is that what you describe is modern day metropolitain San Francisco, and not 1930's SF. IIRC, the population in the Bay area was about 1/3 what it is today in the area, so the congestion issues really isn't one. Also, automobile ownership was not yet at even the 50% mark. Add to this the fact that there was no interstate system (that's 1950's era work), and the actual impact of the bridge is further minimalized. If the game went beyond 1948, then I might agree with you, but even then, I'd probably give more credence to the Interstate system than the bridge.

4. IMO the vent works exactly as it should. There is an initial hit to the economy (as happened), which disappears over time (as happened). The event description is written in such a way as to reflect the time period, and what was transpiring at the time, rather than a modernist spin on the events. If you have such an issue with it, offer up a a version of your own. Who knows, it may be included.

It was the Golden Gate Bridge that allowed the interstate system started by Eisenhower to get to the level it is in in this area. Besides, even with the interstate system the Golden Gate to this day is not actually hooked onto the interstate system or a major freeway. It goes across city surface streets. If we're going to put in bridge events the best one would likely be the Oakland-SF bay bridge, which was officially opened Nov 12 1936. I'd probably say that would add 3infra while the GG would add 2.

Talking about the history of bridges actually pushed me to do a bit more research on the subject, it's actually quite interesting. The first bridge created was the Antioch bridge in 1926, followed by the Dunbarten and Carquinez Bridges in 1927. Those were followed by the Bay Bridge in 1936 and the GG in 1937. Past that is the San Rafael bridge in 1956, then the Benecia bridge in '62 and finally the last one the Hayward bridge in '67. Bridges are VERY important to the Bay Area economy and are a major boon for the infastructure here.

As for a modernist spin on the event? No, the spin currently on it is the very definition of modernist. It's basically Reaganomics applied to the 30's-40's. Anyways, I won't bother arguing about it, it's not worth the effort.


http://www.mtc.ca.gov/bata/bridges.htm

Here's a pretty decent site for Bay Area bridges.
And besides, it's not like infra actually does anything to affect play balance. I'm not asking for additional IC or lowered Dissent.


edited by gzav - Please read the Double posts sticky.

 

[Sirveri]

Hell I'll make it one step easier!

Here's the events;

########################################################################
# Golden Gate Bridge Completed
# by Burris
########################################################################
event = {
id = 322020
random = no
country = USA
trigger = {
headofgovernment = 6035
random = 80
}
name = CEVTNAME_322020
desc = CEVTDESC_322020
style = 0

date = { day = 24 month = may year = 1937 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 30 month = may year = 1937 }

action_a = {
name = CEVTACTA_322020
command = { type = infrastructure which = 158 value = 1.89 }
}
}

########################################################################
# Bay Bridge Completed
# by Sirveri
########################################################################
event = {
id = 322264
random = no
country = USA
trigger = {
headofgovernment = 6035
random = 80
}
name = CEVTNAME_322264
desc = CEVTDESC_322264
style = 0

date = { day = 3 month = november year = 1936 }
offset = 1
deathdate = { day = 12 month = november year = 1936 }

action_a = {
name = CEVTACTA_322264
command = { type = industry which = 158 value = 1 }
command = { type = infrastructure which = 158 value = 3 }
}
}

Here's the new 322264 CEVT files.
CEVTNAME_322264;Completion of the Bay bridge;;;;;;;;;;X;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
CEVTDESC_322264;Possibly one of the most impressive feats of civil engineering of the century. The Bay Bridge spanned from San Francisco to Treasure Island before going out to Oakland. A amasing feat of engineering that necessitated the construction of artifical island to link San Francisco to Treasure Island. Historically the Bridge was opened to the public on November 6, 1936. The completion of the Bridge provided a invaluable boost to both the infastructure and the economy of the entire area. It also served to bring thousands of jobs to the West Coast, and gave people valuable work experience. But more importantly it put extra money into the pockets of the workers, which was then reinvested in the economy.;;;;;;;;;;X;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
CEVTDESC_322020;One of the largest and most ambitious projects ever attempted in engineering, the Golden Gate Bridge linked Marin to San Fransisco. On May 27, 1937, the bridge was finally completed. Like the Boulder dam and the Bay Bridge, it served to bring thousands of jobs to the West Coast, and gave people valuable work experience.;;;;;;;;;;X;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
CEVTACTA_322264;Another huge success for the average American worker;;;;;;;;;;X;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

All you'd need to do is cut and paste.
I pulled the Industry up out of GG and gave it to Bay, because the Bay Bridge is more important. Mainly for play balance. Personally I doubt extra 1 IC will make much of any differance to USA so if we wanted we could add it back in.

 

[unmerged(26501)]

A question

I've never played the US in C.O.R.E. so I do not know alot about their events, but when I play another nation I always have it so historcial events, anc choices for all countries pop up. I've noticed the world series, doulder damn events from this. So I was wondering is there any events about the many race riots during this time period, the Zoot Suit Riots, New York Draft riots, and so on. If there is I have never noticed, if not it should be included because at the time these were big events in the US and alot of dissent were caused from these. Anyways thats my 2 cents

Believe, obey, fight-Benito Mussolini
The role of a citizen and soldier are inseperable-Benito Mussolini
Kill one, you're a murderer, kill a million, you're a conquerer-Dont Know

 

[unmerged(15066)]

US Dissent

The short answer to your question is no. Scripting race riots puts one on the slippery slope to the death camps which is a clearly forbidden territory. The USA does get plenty of dissent, however.

1) Tax increases: FDR passed a series of tax increases which got influential segments of the population mad at him.
2) Court Packing & Politics: There is an event about Roosevelt's court-packing plan in 1937 which threatened to become a constituional crisis. There are mid-term election events, which typically work out to weaken the incumbant administration and raise dissent a point. The FDR administration also used relief funds for blatant political patronage that created dissent among the envious who were left out. The Hatch Act outlawed the most obvious forms of that.
3) There's some labor strife that is covered in events. More unionization activity events are submitted to the Wiki, but haven't been integrated into the game. The years from 1937 to 1941 witnessed a sea change in management-labor relationships for the big industrial corporations in the USA.
4) Isolationists: Once WW2 kicks in, then the "America First" committee is formed that increases dissent. There are also events on the Neutrality Acts where the choices giving the government more latitude for involvement leads to dissent (at least submitted if not completely integrated).
5) Race Relations: There is an event concerning integration of civilian contractors where aggressive integration generates dissent increasing backlash. I seem to recall a very late event on Truman's integration of the military. An event about the internment of the Japanese was at least discussed for submission to the Wiki. My own research suggests that lack of internment would have resulted in a dissent increasing backlash in the aftermath of the Roberts Report. There is also an event that was submitted on the Port Chicago explosion which resulted in a mutiny among the mostly black enlisted personnel of the ordinance battalions that loaded ammunition ships.

Playing the USA, you have to keep an eye on your WE. A number of events in Europe and the Far East include big jumps in the US war entry, without an event popping up on the US side to highlight the change.

 

[unmerged(15066)]

Landon '36

I've been taking a closer look at the Landon '36 tree on the events and it seems that such a choice will, to a greater or less extent, crater US war entry for six months to a year.

Landon himself said that his views on foreign policy were to be found in Washington's Farewell Address, which doesn't help that much. You can take a phrase here or there and build it into full fledged isolationism or a navy second to none.

One point is that the Republican participation in Isolationism as a historical movement is confounded partisan opposition to Roosevelt. The same political dynamic that led some Democratic politicians to support Clintonian interventions but oppose those of Bush was operating in the 1930s, too. Republicans would support their president (with some exceptions) and Democrats would oppose (with some exceptions). The point is that Landon would have influence on whether his administration would veer isolationist or not.

Another issue which HOI does poorly on is dealing with Isolationism per se. In its 1940/41 full bloom Isolationism was more about Fortress America than disarmament. In HOI, war entry tracks rearmament directly with willingness to join the war. Isolationism accepted the need for rearmament, but opposed alliance with Britain.

In short, the most likely Republican foreign policy of 1937 would be a return to the 1920s. The US would be active diplomatically to defuse tensions, see the Western hemisphere as an inviolable sphere of influence, and not embark on any grand schemes of either rearmament or disarmament. At that level or abstraction, it is quite close to Roosevelt's own 2nd term policy until the outbreak of war made massive rearmament mandatory. The foreign policy differences would be seen less in how to deal with Germany than how Mexican or Caribbean relations would be managed. Domestically, it would be far different matter, but that is a different topic.

In HOI terms that suggests to me that WE should only be a few points off from the historical track. What might occur would be a circumstance where instead of using diplomacy to resolve a dispute on Hispaniola, the USA would land the Marines (as they did in Haiti and Nicaragua in the 1920s), and reduce the regimes to puppets. The Mexicans would have almost certainly gotten a tougher response when they nationalized Anglo-American oil firms, too. That's not very Euro-centric (which is where the action is in HOI), but the US wasn't Euro-centric.

A truly isolationist administration was certainly a possibility (that's what "B" choices are for) but you could also argue that a neo-TR muscular internationalism with a new battleship and carrier in every annual budget could be found in the GOP's US tradition, too (that's what "C" choices are for).

 

[JRaup]

IMO, GOP policy in a Landon admisitration would have been just as "internationalist" as FDR's, but the focus would not have been Europe. Instead, attentions would have been drawn more to the Pacific, specifically the situation in China. Now how far that policy would have taken the USA is specualtive. It could have ranged from limited support to Chiang Kai-Chek, all the way to open war with Japan in alliance with the KMT. Part of the Republican plank, since 1918 had been to rail upon the Democrats for "abandoning China." read Sen. Borah's speaches on China from the period (Taft too). Certainly there would have been more US involvement with China, including such things as arms sales and industrial/economic assistance. Much of this would have depended upon who Landon chose to be Secretary of State. He could go with a negotiator like Cordell Hull, or a more interventionist one, or someone who would pick and chose what to interfere with.

 

[unmerged(15066)]

Landon/36

I've been working on an event chain that would open the door to that. Landon would be inagurated with a small WE penalty, he spends the spring working on a tax reform package and dealing with the Supreme Court decisions dismantling the New Deal (no FDR so no Court-Packing scheme). During the August recess, Landon finally puts together 'his' foreign policy so the player gets three choices: Hemispheric Hegemon, Isolationist, or the Big Stick. Each choice gets an event where he announces the policy, then the announcement event serves as a handy trigger for the contingent events. Each announcement takes a quote from Washington as a springboard to the policy.

One of the Big Stick events is a second "Great White Fleet" exercise that sends the Pacific Fleet through the Tsushima Straits as a navigation rights exercise before stopping in at Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Singapore, and Sydney. The Japanese are most displeased and shift fascist in response.

It would certainly make sense to take a closer look at the Roosevelt diplomatic efforts and then identify some substitute events for a non-isolationist Landon to pursue in the Pacific. Linking them to specific SecofState personnel would be an interesting twist to keep the games from going stale. One I already on the drawing board was that Taft would resign from the cabinet rather than prosecute a "Big Stick" policy.

 

[JRaup]

I've been working on an event chain that would open the door to that. Landon would be inagurated with a small WE penalty, he spends the spring working on a tax reform package and dealing with the Supreme Court decisions dismantling the New Deal (no FDR so no Court-Packing scheme). During the August recess, Landon finally puts together 'his' foreign policy so the player gets three choices: Hemispheric Hegemon, Isolationist, or the Big Stick. Each choice gets an event where he announces the policy, then the announcement event serves as a handy trigger for the contingent events. Each announcement takes a quote from Washington as a springboard to the policy.

One of the Big Stick events is a second "Great White Fleet" exercise that sends the Pacific Fleet through the Tsushima Straits as a navigation rights exercise before stopping in at Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Singapore, and Sydney. The Japanese are most displeased and shift fascist in response.

It would certainly make sense to take a closer look at the Roosevelt diplomatic efforts and then identify some substitute events for a non-isolationist Landon to pursue in the Pacific. Linking them to specific SecofState personnel would be an interesting twist to keep the games from going stale. One I already on the drawing board was that Taft would resign from the cabinet rather than prosecute a "Big Stick" policy.

I like this idea. How about this: If Landon gets elected in 36, following January, there's an event for him to choose his Sec of State. Depending on who gets chosen determines the "new" foreign policy. So for instance if "isolationist" gets chosen, Taft becomes Sec of State. Or Borah for "Big Stick." That's going off of memory here, so the actual people may vary.

 

[unmerged(15066)]

I like this idea. How about this: If Landon gets elected in 36, following January, there's an event for him to choose his Sec of State. Depending on who gets chosen determines the "new" foreign policy. So for instance if "isolationist" gets chosen, Taft becomes Sec of State. Or Borah for "Big Stick." That's going off of memory here, so the actual people may vary.

The current CORE Landon election event puts Stimson in as Sec of State. If we keep my original time line - which is based on Landon as principally a domestic policy president upon election - so that the foreign policy formulation takes place in the summer, then the sec of state shifting would take place with Stimson resigning in protest to Landon's choice and the appropriate substitute coming on board.

Right now I'm tweaking the historical Roosevelt time line into tune with 0.84 (mostly I despise the US war entry gyrations that are embedded in other country's events and have moved most of those over to US reaction events. The effect of the foreign events on war entry is downplayed and new US events, like the Ludlow Amendment, or effects in existing events make up the difference - all of Mdow's World Series events get a -1 WE as people read the sports pages instead of about evil foreign dictators.). But that takes some playtesting to dial in. However, later this week I can put together a list of major events on each of the three legs.

 

[JRaup]

The current CORE Landon election event puts Stimson in as Sec of State. If we keep my original time line - which is based on Landon as principally a domestic policy president upon election - so that the foreign policy formulation takes place in the summer, then the sec of state shifting would take place with Stimson resigning in protest to Landon's choice and the appropriate substitute coming on board.

Right now I'm tweaking the historical Roosevelt time line into tune with 0.84 (mostly I despise the US war entry gyrations that are embedded in other country's events and have moved most of those over to US reaction events. The effect of the foreign events on war entry is downplayed and new US events, like the Ludlow Amendment, or effects in existing events make up the difference - all of Mdow's World Series events get a -1 WE as people read the sports pages instead of about evil foreign dictators.). But that takes some playtesting to dial in. However, later this week I can put together a list of major events on each of the three legs.

Excellent. The USA WE's fluctuations can be annoying, especially as you try to manage CG production against R&D, and upgrading your units. Plus the hard coded WE swings, dependant upon Axis actions. All adds up to some funky micromanaging.

I like the idea of moving the SecState shift to the summer. Be Landon's first "crisis" in office. As for the WS events, instead of -1 WE, or in addition to it, there should be some dissent reduction. Say -0.5 or even less. Not only did it distract people from the rest of the world, but also took their minds off domestic problems. I had an idea about making two events for each World Series, where either team can win, weighted towards the historical. Give an extra randomness to the historically plausible, but is a very, very, very low priority.

 

[unmerged(15066)]

World Series

As for the WS events, instead of -1 WE, or in addition to it, there should be some dissent reduction. Say -0.5 or even less. Not only did it distract people from the rest of the world, but also took their minds off domestic problems.

I have a full -1 dissent in the WS, but that's because I'm playing with the full strike pack that I submitted to the wiki last fall. Not just the beer strike, but UMW, Ford, GM, US Steel, Little Steel, the Machinists, and the Woolworth Girls. (If Ford beats the first strike, they get struck again in the 40s). The US ends up with dissent in low teens through the last half of 1937 and most of 1938. Landon is in play there, too, since with his election, there is a supreme court decision that reverses the Wagner Act and that flips the chances of the unions winning their strikes that take place after the court decision.

They aren't all on the wiki, but I've put together a US Sports Pack of events with the NFL championships, the rest of the WS, the Thompson Trophy, Cross-country air records, founding of the NBA, founding of the NBL, the Schmeling-Louis Bout, and Wilbur Shaw winning his 3rd Indy in 1940. The only things missing are Seabiscuit and the America's Cup.

 

[unmerged(16965)]

core 84 us cant steer dissens+supplies

I play Hoi 1.06c with Core v084 as the US with highest difficulty.
it is August 8, 1938.
for some strike dissens went from 0 to 3%. OK.
i rise the food numbers from 100% to 125% of public need.
nevertheless dissens rises to 4% and 6% without any further alerting message, instead of staying steady for a while and then decrease.
i paid the food increase by lowering supplies for a while.
then i changed the supply figure to 142 versus a need of 126.
nevertheless my supply reserve went down from 1000 to 0 and
when clicking on the supply icon it sais we need 126 and produce 0, while in real i stated 142 for supplies.
are all these things indicating some bug?????
or do i misunderstand some things???
Thanks for any hints and tips.
Karl Biedermann
meanwhile dissens - where it should slowly decrease - continues to go up and up and up now to 41%. i have the impression some coding reduced by a negative number or increased by a positive instead of a negative number where the dissens should go down. ????????
NOW with dec31/1938 it increased to 51% always going up by 1. i stop playing this game. wondering why from 1936 to august 1938 everything worked fine and now this buggy behavior,-

 

[unmerged(29126)]

Not producing supplies (0) when you have a supply-stockpile of zero will increase dissent, that works as designed.

The question is why aren't you producing supplies when you specifically put the slider at 142 ?

What does your IC/resource situation look like ?

Convoying supplies to another nation will not show up in the ledger/statistics so your own units may be consuming 126 but you're getting rid of more than 142 a day ... so you're supply stockpile would decrease ... but you'd be producing supplies which would mean dissent wouldn't rise ...

 

[Ghost_dk]

Please read the sticky's and do not open new threads.

Ghost_dk

 

[unmerged(15066)]

Runaway Dissent

Check game speed, too. At high clock rates, I've noticed that the engine can miss the extra CG and you can runaway with dissent. Slowing the game down is usually a good way to let the game catch up and WAD.

One of the things when playing the USA is that big war entry changes are embedded in other country's events so you'll be going along with a 35% WE and suddenly it drops to less than 30%. If you don't catch that to rebalance CG, then your dissent can sneak up on you.