• 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 would strongly maintain that a large fleet of pure interceptors would be a waste of our manufacturing capabilities. With no aggressive nations on our continental borders I believe that the greater range and versatility offered by multi-role fighters would be more useful in the long run for both defensive and offensive air actions.


-Sen. Thomas Rudolph

For that precise reason that we do not have any aggression on our borders that I prefer having constructing wings of interceptors, purely for defensive purposes. This is something I advocate for the near future, once we have bolstered our air defenses we can focus on our offensive aerial capabilities such as tactical bombers and multi-role fighters. Perhaps within the next two years.

-Sen. Clark Gable
 
Name: Senator Alvin Carl Miller from Arizona
Born: 1862 (age 62)
Party: Communist Party

Policy:
1. Isolationism but keep good relationship with China, Soviet Union and Republican Spain. If those countries get attacked we should stop trading with agressors and prepare for peace intervention to protect workers and free
people of those countries. Also we should support them at all cost, by selling weapons, offering them national debts or allowing to use United States as safe asylum for refugees. War though isn't an option - we have enough problems at home.
2. Industry should be promoted first. The government should start building factories for workers, roads, railroads, airfields ( also military ones). If any IC would be left, it should be spent for building National Guard units to protect homeland.
3. Our research must be focused on increasing power of our industry and improving farm utilities. We also should promote new technologies like Radios or RADAR. The remaining LD should be spent for building spy network in non-democratic countries like Italy or Germany.
4. United States of America are land of free people, so we should protect world's peace.
5. We shouldn't join any faction, but keep good relations with Soviet Union and when in need we should help each other.
6. All our men should protect our land, not occupy overseas lands. Withdraw all units.
7. We should focus our efforts on promoting Heavy Industry Emphasis.

----------------------------------------------------
 
Sen. Thomas Rudolph:

I must once again ask you for your thoughts on my proposed alterations to your suggested budget. In case you are currently considering this, I apologize, I merely wished to restate it, in case my suggestions had become lost during this most enthusiastic debate.

- Sen. Elizabeth H. Danner

((Sen. Rudolph? Who's that? :blush: Oh, that's me! Sorry, I completely missed your post! Epic noob fail on my part))

Thank you for your support senator. I agree that aircraft carriers should be the main focus of our navy, however modern destroyers are an essential part of our navy due to their unmatched anti-submarine capabilities. They serve the dual purpose of protecting our shipping to an offshore army and in screening our carriers from enemy torpedoes. While we do have a large destroyer force, it is largely outdated and must be upgraded with new models in the future, once we have finished designing them. As for counting on the support of the Royal Navy, I am reluctant to rely on the strength of any foreign power for our defense. Furthermore, their reach is somewhat limited in the far east in the eventuality of a conflict with Japan. It is my philosophy that we must be self reliant in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. On the issue of artillery my main reason for mentioning it is that we are remarkably far behind in this field. Talk of tanks and mobile forces is all well and good, but we must remember that good old honest infantry and artillery will be involved in the bulk of the combat. For airplanes dedicated ground attack aircraft are certainly an idea to consider, but I believe that the destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war through strategic bombing without retaliation will be the deciding factor in any war we may become involved in.

I would like to conclude by asking my esteemed colleagues to recall that we are the United States of America - the largest, most advanced, most dynamic nation on earth! We should not limit ourselves completely to a select few military projects, as we have the resources to become the world's foremost military and technological superpower with correspondingly less effort!


-Sen. Thomas Rudolph

((A few notes on the gameplay - reinforcements do not require a constant upkeep. Putting them at 2 or 3 would soon move the required reinforcements to zero. Another thing is that setting the Dip, Esp, or Officer settings above 5 would mean a massive over investment in these fields - .1 in Dip is good enough for trading, and with the civilian economy officer recruitment has a severe penalty. Only if we want to engage in espionage would ~5 points be actually useful))
 
((We dont need any trading, we are already self sufficent in reasources and nations will always ask for trade with us and there fore we get money from that and still get reasource surplus, point of having diplomacy leadship point spending?))
 
Name: Senator Henry Heidelburg from California
Born: 1892 (age 42)
Party: German-American Bunde

Policy ideas:
-- Foreign policy plans: Intervention, foster close relations with Germany to combat the growing communist threat.

-- Budgets for IC: Expand the United States of America's industrial base and start training a new airforce.

-- Budgets for Leadership: Leadership should go to expanding a large spy network in the UK, France, Italy, Japan and Germany.

-- Declaring war/signing peace treaties: Yes. The USSR and other Communist countries will have to be brought to the knees.

-- Which faction we align ourselves to, if any: Axis

-- If one of the Big Four needs to be fired/replaced: Fascist or National Socialist.

-- Input on our general deployments overseas: Withdraw all

-- All decisions and law changes: Institute high education, Consumer Goods should be in focus as long as we aren't at war.

-- Nukes!: Yes, all weapons should be considered.

"Senator Heidelburg wants to destroy our American way of life!"
-- Senator Mary Phillipps, The Other Californian Senator
 
For that precise reason that we do not have any aggression on our borders that I prefer having constructing wings of interceptors, purely for defensive purposes. This is something I advocate for the near future, once we have bolstered our air defenses we can focus on our offensive aerial capabilities such as tactical bombers and multi-role fighters. Perhaps within the next two years.

-Sen. Clark Gable


But sir, my point that air defense is useless as no power has the ability to reach our borders, with the unlikely exception of the British. Interceptors lack the range to perform many offensive functions, while multi-role fighters have both offensive and defensive capabilities. Surely it makes more sense to focus our efforts on the weapon that can be used as both sword and shield instead of limiting ourselves to defense?


Sen. Thomas Rudolph
 
I agree that we should expand on our navy and especially our aircraft carriers but for this we need to build up a storn industrial base that can handle the production of alot of ships and planes at the same at, at our curernt situation we cannot do that.

Sen. William Fitzgerald Kenzington
 
((I love the debates and arguing. Keep it up! :D

Polls are now:
Isolationist 7
Comintern 1
Allies 1
Axis 1

I'm going to go ahead and call the foreign policy, which will let me work on espionage and finish up the cabinet, as Isolationist.))

If Senators Rudolph and Danner intend to co-author a bill, I would ask for a final draft as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:
"Senator Heidelburg wants to destroy our American way of life!"
-- Senator Mary Phillipps, The Other Californian Senator


Senator Mary Phillipps is a dirty red and a russian spy, and should therefore be removed from office.

Senator Henry Heidelburg, The Californian Senator
 
Senator Mary Phillipps is a dirty red and a russian spy, and should therefore be removed from office.

Present your evidence for this dear senator and perhaps the president will take it into thinking

Btw, what is your name senator?

Sen. William fitzgerald Kenzington
 
"Senator Heidelburg wants to destroy our American way of life!"
-- Senator Mary Phillipps, The Other Californian Senator

While I would tend to agree, one might suggest that Senator Phillipps remembers the saying about the pot and the kettle.

Thank you for your support senator. I agree that aircraft carriers should be the main focus of our navy, however modern destroyers are an essential part of our navy due to their unmatched anti-submarine capabilities. They serve the dual purpose of protecting our shipping to an offshore army and in screening our carriers from enemy torpedoes. While we do have a large destroyer force, it is largely outdated and must be upgraded with new models in the future, once we have finished designing them. As for counting on the support of the Royal Navy, I am reluctant to rely on the strength of any foreign power for our defense. Furthermore, their reach is somewhat limited in the far east in the eventuality of a conflict with Japan. It is my philosophy that we must be self reliant in both the Atlantic and the Pacific. On the issue of artillery my main reason for mentioning it is that we are remarkably far behind in this field. Talk of tanks and mobile forces is all well and good, but we must remember that good old honest infantry and artillery will be involved in the bulk of the combat. For airplanes dedicated ground attack aircraft are certainly an idea to consider, but I believe that the destruction of the enemy's ability to wage war through strategic bombing without retaliation will be the deciding factor in any war we may become involved in.

I would like to conclude by asking my esteemed colleagues to recall that we are the United States of America - the largest, most advanced, most dynamic nation on earth! We should not limit ourselves completely to a select few military projects, as we have the resources to become the world's foremost military and technological superpower with correspondingly less effort!

-Sen. Thomas Rudolph

As concerns the navy, I will bow to the Senator's superior knowledge, and accept his proposal. I nevertheless urge him to consider decreasing the spending, proportional to the other branches of our military, as it is still my opinion that the Navy has been over-prioritized during the last few decades. Regarding reliance upon foreign powers, I do concede the point that the Royal Navy does lack a certain presence in the Pacific Ocean, though I must remind the Senator that Australia is capable of serving as an unrivalled base of operation in any hypothetical war in the area. It is also my opinion that Japan, in spite of its hostility and expansionism in recent times, would not seek to attack the USA or any of its allies.

On the topic of the Army itself, I wish to clarify that I did not intend to propose the increased focus on tactical bombers as a replacement for strategic bombers, but rather, to support our meagre artillery. As I am sure the Senator himself would agree with, I see the USA as possessing an unrivalled range of operation, what with our various possessions and relations. These, combined with our increasing fleet of aircraft carriers, would allow us to operate our bombers in areas wherein we'd have difficulty transporting artillery. I must also disagree with the Senator on the point of the main part of any possible future war - It is my belief that the USA will primarily act as support to those powers already engaged in the war, and as such, that they will be handling the majority of these 'traditional' engagements. Meanwhile, the US forces will provide technologically superior tactical and strategical aid. I would also like to invite the Senator to create a final draft of his budgetary plans. Given the input here given, combined with his already excellent ideas and apparent expertise, I am sure he will be up to the task of creating something mutually acceptable.

As to the final point, I am in full agreement with the Senator, and wish to declare my full-fledged support for the statement.

I agree that we should expand on our navy and especially our aircraft carriers but for this we need to build up a storn industrial base that can handle the production of alot of ships and planes at the same at, at our curernt situation we cannot do that.

Sen. William Fitzgerald Kenzington

I wish to invite the Senator to take a closer look at the budget proposed by Senator Rudolph and supported by myself. Given its focus on improving industrial capacity, he should find it satisfying.

- Senator Elizabeth H. Danner
 
After a look on your bill i find somethings that doesnt appeal to me.

1. You want to modernize the army yet you wish not to put anything to uppgrades thus not modernizing the army.
2. The budget calls for expansion of infrastructure which is totally unnessescary as the current infrastructure is functioning and thus doesnt need to be expanded.
3. We should focus the needed IC on supplies so that we might be slef-relying and dont need to import from other countries, USA is the export of the world.
4. I disagree with the statement that peace can only be sustained through superior firepower and technology, which indicates that USA is a warmongering nation which we arent.
5. There is no reaserch intent on improving our industrial capacity and efficeny thus not improving out status as a the leading global industrial power.
6. There should be more reaserch on how to improve reasource production efficency so we can export more and have a well founded base for expansion of our industry.
7. We should also focus on technology within the computer area by which we can improve our reaserch rate and thus improve our nation's forefront in the world.

Thats what i have to say. If this is corrected your bill is appealing but untill fruther notice it is not that appealing, if it comes down to the point it is better than nothing.

-Senator William Fitzgerald Kenzington
 
Announcing the 1936 Cabinet​

Members of Congress, I have enclosed my cabinet and the plans for Mr. Friedman's intelligence gathering operations.

politics36.jpg


espionage36q.jpg


If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call my office. My door is always open.

Sincerely,

President Roosevelt
-------------------------------------------------
((In the future, you guys will vote on confirm or rejecting my nominees; for now, though, I want your attention focused on budgets, so we'll say they're already confirmed :)))
 
•Foreign Policy: Allies
•Build or modernize? Build and modernize
•Proposed budget for IC: 45 for Army, 35 for Navy, 20 for Air Force, 50 for Industry (Rounded numbers, not based on actual IC)
•Leadership? Split point equal between science and intelligence
•Proposed tech budgets: 25% for army, 50% for general, 20% for navy, 5% for air force

Our main focus should be on rebuilding our own industries by creating new railroads and create more work for our people. Armywise we should focus on land troops and navy in order to get the capability of projecting our troops in Europe and Asia if necessary. Although mister president already expressed our Isolasionist point of view I'm still in support of the British-French alliance, we cannot allow the commitern or the Germans to rule over Europe. Western Europe is our most important ally might the time come! If someone can live up to these standards I will support their bill.

- Senator John Linton for Florida
 
"Dear mr. President

I'm writing this letter with great hope that you understand the concerns I have. After the elections you have gathered your cabinet formed by
good men I know and respect. Unfortunately, one decision makes me feel unsure about our foregin policy. Mr. Hull - good man and great politician,
have been chosen to control it. With enormous sadness I've noticed his susceptibility to words of german diplomat mr. Ribbentrop, who
represents German Reich. It's well known by our citizens that Germany is ruled by one-man dictatorship, who publicly proclaims his hatred to jews,
communists and other groups of people. Also he claims that Germany should revise it's borders after Versal Treaty - so far he didn't say how, however
it doesn't seem to be a peaceful way of solving any border issues. Also Germany's army rebuild plan seems to threaten peace in Europe.
I'm afraid that both public opinion and Europe will see the decision of choosing mr. Hull on position of foreign minister as United States' engagement
in Europe's problems. Also I'm concerned about the fact that some people may think we are cooperating with German Reich, while we should defend democracy
and people's freedom. Aligning to Hitler's regime is against all we have been taught during our life - love to freedom and each man's right to speak, work,
believe in God and choose his faith. Unfortunate citizens of Germany don't have this right and we shouldn't support those, who are oppresing them.
I believe that we should replace mr. Hull with somebody else, who will push our country's foreign policy back on the good road.

Sincerely
Sen. Alvin Carl Miller"
 
After a look on your bill i find somethings that doesnt appeal to me.

1. You want to modernize the army yet you wish not to put anything to uppgrades thus not modernizing the army.
2. The budget calls for expansion of infrastructure which is totally unnessescary as the current infrastructure is functioning and thus doesnt need to be expanded.
3. We should focus the needed IC on supplies so that we might be slef-relying and dont need to import from other countries, USA is the export of the world.
4. I disagree with the statement that peace can only be sustained through superior firepower and technology, which indicates that USA is a warmongering nation which we arent.
5. There is no reaserch intent on improving our industrial capacity and efficeny thus not improving out status as a the leading global industrial power.
6. There should be more reaserch on how to improve reasource production efficency so we can export more and have a well founded base for expansion of our industry.
7. We should also focus on technology within the computer area by which we can improve our reaserch rate and thus improve our nation's forefront in the world.

Thats what i have to say. If this is corrected your bill is appealing but untill fruther notice it is not that appealing, if it comes down to the point it is better than nothing.

-Senator William Fitzgerald Kenzington


1) As I have stated previously, with the threat of war still years away in the worst case and Europe just beginning to re-arm, I believe that we must first review and further develop our army and air units before upgrading our current forces. Most of our current military equipment is far behind the times, in many instances dating back to world war one. Thus, we should spend at least a year re-designing our military and building up our infrastructure before upgrading. This will avoid needless expenditures on military equipment which will be obsolete before it is even finished!
2) An improved transcontinental railroad to our important naval base at San Diego would greatly improve our supply throughput to the Pacific - vital for any Pacific conflict. However, I am willing to negotiate on this point as we do have existing facilities.
3) While eventually we will need to produce our own supplies, we are currently overflowing with natural resources. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this. By trading our excess raw materials for foreign supplies we will have more available to improve our industry and armed forces, and still be able to produce our own when needed.
4) War would be a tragic affair, I agree that our primary goal should be the maintenance of our neutrality. However, to quote the ancient tactician Vegitius: "Si vis pacem, para bellum or If you wish for peace, prepare for war" The only catastrophe worse than another Great War would be one in which we are technologically behind and militarily weak. I propose focusing on the Navy and Air Force, which can be constitutionally expanded with little manpower requirements during peacetime while our technicians work on improvements and prototypes to keep up with and surpass the cutting edge of military technology. If war does occur, our up to date navy and air force can protect us while we produce the necessary ground forces at home.
5) I do propose industrial and computing research at the very beginning of my tech. program
6) My trade experts have assured me that we have a sufficient surplus of raw materials to satisfy the entire world. It is not an issue of how much we have to sell, but of how much they are willing to buy
7) Agreed.

Senator Danner - You are correct, hostilities with a major naval power do not appear immenant. Perhaps I have been over - emphasizing the navy somewhat. However, due to the large time required to build ships we should finish our current projects while researching improved models for future construction, perhaps in '38.

As for the air force, we certainly have the resources to develop both strategic and tactical airpower. Personally though I believe that multi-role and Strategic assets are the future. The three most likely beligerants in the next decade are Germany, Japan, and the USSR. Given the vast distances involved to reach each nation I advocate focusing on long - range aircraft.

Thank you all for your feedback, taking it into account I shall prepare a revised, more detailed program which I shall present shortly.

-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R - OH]



((Now that I'm home I can fire up the game and give a more detailed proposal... The main point of the railroad is that it is cheap and quick and will boost our practical for IC construction. Naval bases, Airfields, and RADAR's are also a good starting build))
 
"Dear mr. President

I'm writing this letter with great hope that you understand the concerns I have. After the elections you have gathered your cabinet formed by
good men I know and respect. Unfortunately, one decision makes me feel unsure about our foregin policy. Mr. Hull - good man and great politician,
have been chosen to control it. With enormous sadness I've noticed his susceptibility to words of german diplomat mr. Ribbentrop, who
represents German Reich. It's well known by our citizens that Germany is ruled by one-man dictatorship, who publicly proclaims his hatred to jews,
communists and other groups of people. Also he claims that Germany should revise it's borders after Versal Treaty - so far he didn't say how, however
it doesn't seem to be a peaceful way of solving any border issues. Also Germany's army rebuild plan seems to threaten peace in Europe.
I'm afraid that both public opinion and Europe will see the decision of choosing mr. Hull on position of foreign minister as United States' engagement
in Europe's problems. Also I'm concerned about the fact that some people may think we are cooperating with German Reich, while we should defend democracy
and people's freedom. Aligning to Hitler's regime is against all we have been taught during our life - love to freedom and each man's right to speak, work,
believe in God and choose his faith. Unfortunate citizens of Germany don't have this right and we shouldn't support those, who are oppresing them.
I believe that we should replace mr. Hull with somebody else, who will push our country's foreign policy back on the good road.

Sincerely
Sen. Alvin Carl Miller"

Senator Miller,

I appreciate your concerns. Unfortunately, the only other candidate for the post, Mr. Vandenburg, is a bit of a boor and other nations feel he is too aggressive. I will make sure I investigate other alternatives in 1937.

Sincerely,

President Roosevelt

((Gameplay wise, Vandenburg increases threat, which will do us more harm than good))
 
Proposed Budget: Revised

IC
  • Upgrades: 0 IC
  • Reinforcement: 0.25 IC
  • Supplies: 0 IC
  • Production: 95 IC (or whatever is left)
  • Consumer Goods: 60 IC (or whatever is required for 0 dissent)


Production: Finish everything in the queue and build all IC complexes. Perhaps a few railroads will be built to connect the Eastern and Western Lines. With 90 IC in production we should be able to add over 15 base IC this year alone. With further expansion in '37 we could easily increase our base IC by 25, or 1/6th of its current capacity.


HoI3_13.jpg

Proposed limited railroad expansion


Leadership
  • Research: 31.48
  • Espionage: 1.00 (+.05 spies per day)
  • Diplomacy: 0.10
  • Officers: 0

Priority Techs:
Further consultation with aerospace experts revealed that we are already on the cutting edge of aerospace and industrial technologies. According to them, further discoveries would not materialize for years even with massive funding. Therefore, the '36 tech budget is focused primarily on naval and army designs. ((almost all our air and industrial techs are '38 - '39 level - virtually impossible to research at this time))

Army:
  • Cavalry Arms x4 (difficulty level '18) x 3
  • Infantry Arms x4 (difficulty level '18) x 3
  • Light Tank x4 (difficulty level '18) x2
  • Artillery x2 (difficulty level '18) x 3
  • ((this will bring the tech up to '36 level - incurs no penalties))
  • Engineer Brigade (difficulty level '35)


Navy:
  • Destroyer x4 (difficulty level '36)
  • Light Cruiser x4 (difficulty level '36)
  • Aircraft Carrier x4 (difficulty level '36)


Air:
  • Basic Medium Fuel Tank (difficulty level '36)
  • Basic Twin Engine Airframe (difficulty level '36)
  • Basic Bomb (difficulty level '36)


Doctrines:
Several doctrines can be easily researched. The choice should be left up to our military which avenues to pursue.


These objectives should be easily obtainable with the planned research funding.


-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH]
 
Avindian,

If Saithis is willing to give me the slot, I'd like to fill the Chief of the Army position, since I'm most comfortable with HoI3's ground combat elements.

Failing that, I'd be happy to fill either a Texan Senate seat or another minister-level position.

- "Tom" TankOfMidgets
 
But sir, my point that air defense is useless as no power has the ability to reach our borders, with the unlikely exception of the British. Interceptors lack the range to perform many offensive functions, while multi-role fighters have both offensive and defensive capabilities. Surely it makes more sense to focus our efforts on the weapon that can be used as both sword and shield instead of limiting ourselves to defense?


Sen. Thomas Rudolph

Interceptors lack the range yes but that is precisely why I have called for research on improved models to replace our aging air assets increasing their frames, armaments and range among other things. Regardless, despite my preference of specialized units rather than all-purpose masters of none if you'd like we can comission a committee and based on their findings we can come to an agreement. What say you, senator?

-Sen. Clark Gable