I co-sponsor this bill. Petain's Vichy government is but a puppet of the Axis powers, and we should do our best to re-establish a democratic regime.
Regards;
-
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 co-sponsor this bill. Petain's Vichy government is but a puppet of the Axis powers, and we should do our best to re-establish a democratic regime.
Regards;
Due to the timing of this bill (and the fact there's a better than average chance we'll cross the Elbe in the next update), I'm going to put the update on hold until we vote on this bill. As always, please bold your vote!
(( For me this wasn't the case in all the tests I ran, that's more a reason of Third Army only fielding leg infantry than of overwhelming enemy resistance))
((Also, I assume you count me and Senator Marshall as Aye, right?))
Current poll:
Aye: 4
Nay: 0.
If we receive one more "Aye", it'll go into effect under EVA and the update should still come tomorrow evening.
Aye: 4
Nay: 0.
If we receive one more "Aye", it'll go into effect under EVA and the update should still come tomorrow evening.
Fellow Senators,
You've made me proud. This has to be the quickest bill acceptance in the history of our beloved nation!
Now, we wait for the presidential briefing which is scheduled for tomorrow. I must confess I have not been able to follow the (rather unclear, if you ask me) news broadcasts lately, so I am eager to hear of our progress.
Regards;
You've made me proud. This has to be the quickest bill acceptance in the history of our beloved nation!
Now, we wait for the presidential briefing which is scheduled for tomorrow. I must confess I have not been able to follow the (rather unclear, if you ask me) news broadcasts lately, so I am eager to hear of our progress.
Regards;
The limit has been reached, but I also vote Aye. We can't tolerate the existence of National Socialist lapdogs.
- Sen. Elexis Sinclaire (R - MA)
- Sen. Elexis Sinclaire (R - MA)
Mr. President, this might also clarify the situation for some senators, particularly Senator Marshall
maybe you could clarify, if the resources I proposed as expendable in the Atlantic are all to be redeployed to the Pacific, or if some or all stay in the Atlantic.
Following this sentence, I'll list all resources I could send to the Pacific:
after assignments completed:
SAGs 'Montana' and 'Arkansas' along with 2nd USMC
starting from now:
SAG 'Oklahoma' along with the three unnamed TP in Norfolk, VA
Lieutenant-General Joseph Warren Stilwell
Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Theater
maybe you could clarify, if the resources I proposed as expendable in the Atlantic are all to be redeployed to the Pacific, or if some or all stay in the Atlantic.
Following this sentence, I'll list all resources I could send to the Pacific:
after assignments completed:
SAGs 'Montana' and 'Arkansas' along with 2nd USMC
starting from now:
SAG 'Oklahoma' along with the three unnamed TP in Norfolk, VA
Lieutenant-General Joseph Warren Stilwell
Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Theater
I have signed the Vichy France Liberation Bill into law and formally added to the register. ((Or, the front page. 
))
))
Novatheorem and shierholzer, would you mind sending me a PM with your most recent plans? It's more convenient for me to have everything in one place. Thanks for your help!
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am hereby symbolically witholding my vote ((conveniently after the bill has passed: 2 week holiday sales are a pain as a retail grocer!!)) to bring up a point. Currently, we have reserve divisions serving front-line duties in Europe. As I tried to intimate in the bill I proposed earlier, I strongly believe these troops have much greater value in reserve positions where they are not subject to constant battle conditions. Although they are some of the best soldiers on Earth, the Brigades mustered as regular Infantry will prove to be much more efficient in the conflicts to come. At the very least, I believe all reservist Brigades should be used as support or reactionary forces only.
Thank You. I yield the floor.
((Being designated as "Reserve" increases the IC needed for re-inforcement by approximately 8x. Limiting the casualties sustained by such Brigades will free up IC to be put where it's more vitally needed. It may me a drop in the bucket in relation to the amount of IC we produce, but enough such drops eventually lead to another whole bucket!!))
I am hereby symbolically witholding my vote ((conveniently after the bill has passed: 2 week holiday sales are a pain as a retail grocer!!)) to bring up a point. Currently, we have reserve divisions serving front-line duties in Europe. As I tried to intimate in the bill I proposed earlier, I strongly believe these troops have much greater value in reserve positions where they are not subject to constant battle conditions. Although they are some of the best soldiers on Earth, the Brigades mustered as regular Infantry will prove to be much more efficient in the conflicts to come. At the very least, I believe all reservist Brigades should be used as support or reactionary forces only.
Thank You. I yield the floor.
((Being designated as "Reserve" increases the IC needed for re-inforcement by approximately 8x. Limiting the casualties sustained by such Brigades will free up IC to be put where it's more vitally needed. It may me a drop in the bucket in relation to the amount of IC we produce, but enough such drops eventually lead to another whole bucket!!))
Senators,
the command structure of our armed forces is in complete disarray, there are 5 major naming patterns for Army units:
- First US Armored Corps
- First US Army Corps
- First Corps
- 1st Corps
- 1st US Army Corps
that alone would probably something tolerable, but several numbers are used multiple times. Also our unclear naming system often causes confusion (as you could see from the communication between the President and Lieutenant-General Stilwell recently), we could reduce the amount of confusion significantly - less confusion means also less of our boys dying for freedom - if we enact a common naming system.
((Some divisions names occur also multiple times))
So here I propose:
US Armed Forces Designation Bill
§1 Army Groups
§§1.1 Naming pattern is as following: Army Group '<area of deployment>'
§2 Armies
§§2.1 Naming pattern is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> Army
§3 Corps
§§3.1 Naming pattern for pure armored formations is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Armored Corps
§§3.2 Naming pattern for formations including at least one Infantry division is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Army Corps
§§3.3 Naming pattern for pure marine formations is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Marine Corps
§4 Divisions
§§4.1 If the President get's knowledge of multiple divisions with the same name and number, he should redesignate the odd divisions to more appropriate and not used names and numbers
§5 Navies
§§5.1 Naming pattern for Navies with CV as their major vessels is as following: CTF '<major ship's name>'
§§5.2 Naming pattern for Navies with BB/BC/CA as their major vessels is as following: SAG '<major ship's name>'
§§5.3 Naming pattern for Navies only fielding submarines is as following: SSQ '<nickname | determined by the President>'
§§5.4 Naming pattern for Navies only fielding transport ships is as following: TRG '<nickname | determined by the President>'
§6 Air Forces
§§6.1 Naming pattern is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Air Force
§§6.2 Naming pattern for units only fielding CAG is as following: <name of the carrier based> Carrier Complement <alphabetic order is to be added if a carrier fields more than one separate unit>
§§6.3 Naming pattern for units only fielding TRA is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Troop Carrier Command
§7 Temporary designations
§§7.1 Any Theater Commander-in-Chief (or his Deputy) may create temporary units on his own according to the requirements in this paragraph
§§7.2 All newly created units or redesignated units are to be named after the following pattern: TG <number>.[<optional sub-number>]/<branch key | further depicted §§7.7>
§§7.3 PACCOM has the numbers 1-50 and 251-300 at it's disposal
§§7.4 ATLCOM has the numbers 51-100 and 201-250 at it's disposal
§§7.5 all other numbers are reserved, and are supposed to be assigned if we ever have the need for more than two big theaters
§§7.6 temporary Headquarters of bigger operations could also be named after the following pattern: Operational Headquarter '<name of the operation>'
§§7.7 The branch keys are as following:
§§§7.7.1 A == US Army
§§§7.7.2 N == US Navy
§§§7.7.3 AF == US Army Air Corps
§§§7.7.4 MC == US Marine Corps
§§7.8 After their missions are accomplished, they should immediately be redesignated to their normal designations, and the temporary created units disbanded
-- David Worth Clark (D-ID)
((If anyone has something to contribute, just let me know, this bill is more of an discussion base than an actual voting ready proposal for me. But I think we should all want to eliminate the confusion caused by unclear naming systems and no real law how and if generals in the field could adapt their troops for specific missions))
the command structure of our armed forces is in complete disarray, there are 5 major naming patterns for Army units:
- First US Armored Corps
- First US Army Corps
- First Corps
- 1st Corps
- 1st US Army Corps
that alone would probably something tolerable, but several numbers are used multiple times. Also our unclear naming system often causes confusion (as you could see from the communication between the President and Lieutenant-General Stilwell recently), we could reduce the amount of confusion significantly - less confusion means also less of our boys dying for freedom - if we enact a common naming system.
((Some divisions names occur also multiple times))
So here I propose:
US Armed Forces Designation Bill
§1 Army Groups
§§1.1 Naming pattern is as following: Army Group '<area of deployment>'
§2 Armies
§§2.1 Naming pattern is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> Army
§3 Corps
§§3.1 Naming pattern for pure armored formations is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Armored Corps
§§3.2 Naming pattern for formations including at least one Infantry division is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Army Corps
§§3.3 Naming pattern for pure marine formations is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Marine Corps
§4 Divisions
§§4.1 If the President get's knowledge of multiple divisions with the same name and number, he should redesignate the odd divisions to more appropriate and not used names and numbers
§5 Navies
§§5.1 Naming pattern for Navies with CV as their major vessels is as following: CTF '<major ship's name>'
§§5.2 Naming pattern for Navies with BB/BC/CA as their major vessels is as following: SAG '<major ship's name>'
§§5.3 Naming pattern for Navies only fielding submarines is as following: SSQ '<nickname | determined by the President>'
§§5.4 Naming pattern for Navies only fielding transport ships is as following: TRG '<nickname | determined by the President>'
§6 Air Forces
§§6.1 Naming pattern is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Air Force
§§6.2 Naming pattern for units only fielding CAG is as following: <name of the carrier based> Carrier Complement <alphabetic order is to be added if a carrier fields more than one separate unit>
§§6.3 Naming pattern for units only fielding TRA is as following: <ordinal numeral | in words> US Troop Carrier Command
§7 Temporary designations
§§7.1 Any Theater Commander-in-Chief (or his Deputy) may create temporary units on his own according to the requirements in this paragraph
§§7.2 All newly created units or redesignated units are to be named after the following pattern: TG <number>.[<optional sub-number>]/<branch key | further depicted §§7.7>
§§7.3 PACCOM has the numbers 1-50 and 251-300 at it's disposal
§§7.4 ATLCOM has the numbers 51-100 and 201-250 at it's disposal
§§7.5 all other numbers are reserved, and are supposed to be assigned if we ever have the need for more than two big theaters
§§7.6 temporary Headquarters of bigger operations could also be named after the following pattern: Operational Headquarter '<name of the operation>'
§§7.7 The branch keys are as following:
§§§7.7.1 A == US Army
§§§7.7.2 N == US Navy
§§§7.7.3 AF == US Army Air Corps
§§§7.7.4 MC == US Marine Corps
§§7.8 After their missions are accomplished, they should immediately be redesignated to their normal designations, and the temporary created units disbanded
-- David Worth Clark (D-ID)
((If anyone has something to contribute, just let me know, this bill is more of an discussion base than an actual voting ready proposal for me. But I think we should all want to eliminate the confusion caused by unclear naming systems and no real law how and if generals in the field could adapt their troops for specific missions))
Senator Willis,
I certainly agree with your point that we should avoid using our reserve units when regular infantry is available, as your have mentioned in the past there are better uses for them and keeping them in fighting order is much more demanding. I have to say however, and my knowledge on this subject is sadly limited, if we had enough regular infantry to replace every reserve unit on the front lines wouldn't our esteemed commanders be doing that already? If that is not the case then I fully support this idea, and would recommend that any regular infantry filling a support role should be switched out with frontline reserve units.
Senator Andrew Ryan, R-MI
((I also wanted to apologize for being absent from this AAR for so long, I stopped checking up on it when it slowed down, and then once school started I did not have the time to catch up once I saw it picking back up.))
I certainly agree with your point that we should avoid using our reserve units when regular infantry is available, as your have mentioned in the past there are better uses for them and keeping them in fighting order is much more demanding. I have to say however, and my knowledge on this subject is sadly limited, if we had enough regular infantry to replace every reserve unit on the front lines wouldn't our esteemed commanders be doing that already? If that is not the case then I fully support this idea, and would recommend that any regular infantry filling a support role should be switched out with frontline reserve units.
Senator Andrew Ryan, R-MI
((I also wanted to apologize for being absent from this AAR for so long, I stopped checking up on it when it slowed down, and then once school started I did not have the time to catch up once I saw it picking back up.))
((I play the game for quite a time yet, and quite heavy also, but I've never heard of reserves using eight times as many reinforcements than normal troops. Contrary I heard of many guys abusing the game's conscription laws to spawn insane amounts of troops, considering that reinforcing a unit is only 5% as expensive as building it new (you get a Volunteer Army unit for 28.75% of their overall cost). Not for nothing many MultiPlayer houserules forbid the creation of reserve formations.))
--
((to leave something about your core statement: at the moment (at least in Europe), any unit not used on the front (or shuffled out to reorg) is wasted. Our boys were cheered in each village they entered, so I don't think we're about to get anything criminal that couldn't be handled by local police and village militias, but need's entire combat divisions to help out. To be honest, VE Day is just a matter of when, and not of if as of 1 July 1943.))
Senator Clark,
I heartily support your bill, but would like to point out that besides units undergoing creation, and the first navy that has been since renamed, the United States Navy has followed a strong naming tradition.
Regards,
Frank Knox,
Chief of Staff, United States Navy
I heartily support your bill, but would like to point out that besides units undergoing creation, and the first navy that has been since renamed, the United States Navy has followed a strong naming tradition.
Regards,
Frank Knox,
Chief of Staff, United States Navy
Secretary Knox,
I acknowledge, that the Navy has the far strongest naming tradition of all our branches, nevertheless, I thought it would be good to have legal certainty in all branches, for me the most important part is the part which draws the borders in which our commanders can temporary redesignate units on their own.
Just see the newly created 1st Army in ATLCOM, their only task is to liberate a relatively small portion of land, and then dissolve. The standard naming caused big confusion, since the we already own a First Army, which is a totally different deal. If the proposed bill were law back then, Lieutenant-General Stilwell might have named the new Headquarter TG 60/A and everyone would know, that he's talking about an newly created Headquarter, which is about to oversee one single operation and is to be disbanded after completion. This could also be useful on the Navy side, especially for the CINCPAC, who would be able to temporarily split or merge his units to fit better for specific Operations, without the need to annoy the Senate with continuous shifting of a few ships. For example all our SAG currently in ATLCOM have vulnerable transport vessels attached, wouldn't it better if the local commanders, could let the transports behind in port, if they don't need them for their current assignment (intercepting enemy destroyers has the same result with or without, however our transports get badly damaged if being part in any unnecessary sea battle)?
The only exception I have to note for the Navies naming tradition, is the naming of the Carrier' Air Complements (luckily that improved recently).
-- David Worth Clark (D-ID)
I acknowledge, that the Navy has the far strongest naming tradition of all our branches, nevertheless, I thought it would be good to have legal certainty in all branches, for me the most important part is the part which draws the borders in which our commanders can temporary redesignate units on their own.
Just see the newly created 1st Army in ATLCOM, their only task is to liberate a relatively small portion of land, and then dissolve. The standard naming caused big confusion, since the we already own a First Army, which is a totally different deal. If the proposed bill were law back then, Lieutenant-General Stilwell might have named the new Headquarter TG 60/A and everyone would know, that he's talking about an newly created Headquarter, which is about to oversee one single operation and is to be disbanded after completion. This could also be useful on the Navy side, especially for the CINCPAC, who would be able to temporarily split or merge his units to fit better for specific Operations, without the need to annoy the Senate with continuous shifting of a few ships. For example all our SAG currently in ATLCOM have vulnerable transport vessels attached, wouldn't it better if the local commanders, could let the transports behind in port, if they don't need them for their current assignment (intercepting enemy destroyers has the same result with or without, however our transports get badly damaged if being part in any unnecessary sea battle)?
The only exception I have to note for the Navies naming tradition, is the naming of the Carrier' Air Complements (luckily that improved recently).
-- David Worth Clark (D-ID)
In the interest of not rehashing one of the oldest and most irritating arguments in HOI3, I'm going to ask that we stop the discussion of reserve cost. There are lots of threads on it already, and it's kind of a moot point since we haven't built reserve formations since before the war started.
Also, while I agree that naming could (and should be) more consistent, for the sake of my sanity, no temporary names. Everything else is fine, but using a name for a few weeks and then changing it back could get really annoying really quickly.
Otherwise, carry on, ladies and gentlemen.
Also, while I agree that naming could (and should be) more consistent, for the sake of my sanity, no temporary names.
Everything else is fine, but using a name for a few weeks and then changing it back could get really annoying really quickly.Otherwise, carry on, ladies and gentlemen.
((I mostly integrated this get to mop up the confusion I caused with 1st Army versus First Army in ATLCOM. The temporary names are only to get a naming convention for using temporary commands as 1st Army, to be short to have you rename something it must be of new or other composition than what exists currently. This is explicitly not for renaming 2nd USMC every two weeks because it got a new assignment, if I've to split 2nd USMC, at least one part will have an standard name, the whole §7 aims at giving commanders a rule within they could name this split away unit with standard name, to something from which we know, that's a split-away, and most importantly, who has split it away (or newly created), due to the unique number ranges for each theater. Just to carry that to my Southwestern France campaign, the only name that should be changed according to §7 of this bill is temporary created 1st Army (if I designated them with TG 60/A it is readable for everyone, that this is first a temporary unit, second, it's an Army unit, and third it belongs to ATLCOM), the two Corps attached to that army shouldn't change their name, since they didn't change themselves, only the Army commanding them. §7 is only, to enable Commanders to give troops they created a more informative name than just the standard one you get if you create something new (over all, that standard is also depending on which language setting you use - if I'd use German, 1st Army would be 1. Armee), however if the president is more comfortable I'll add §§7.9 to explicitly forbid renaming, if you didn't create a standard name. However I still hope on our commanders not to over use §7.))Also, while I agree that naming could (and should be) more consistent, for the sake of my sanity, no temporary names.