Glad to have you along! As far as ministerial positions, I'll let Saithis decide.
-
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.
Glad to have you along! As far as ministerial positions, I'll let Saithis decide.
I'm just happy to be here, regardless of the position I'm given. Just let me know where I'm needed, and I'll be there.
Absolutely, please do! I'll PM you my starting OOB proposal (it has a couple overlaps in leaders, apparently, as it was hastily scrambled before the deadline). Feel free to completely restructure or keep it as you see fit, I don't mind, as long as Avindian's happy.
((Excellent that we now have more Ministers! hope this hopefully gets going and that we get more ministers as the game progresses.
Revised Budget Proposal
Foreign Policy: For now I would strongly advise to keep ourselves isolated at the moment. However if the threat from Germany or Japan becomes too high, we have to act. We cannot sit idly and see other countries infest the world with such thoughts as theirs.
Build or modernize? I would want a balanced budget for this. We need to improve the quality of our troops to continue to be a superpower; however I see the need to expand our industry to even further this opinion, and to remain superior.
IC Budget Proposal
Upgrades: We should keep the slider locked at around what is required to give our troops the newest weapons possible. I believe this was around 30 IC
Reinforcements: Keep the slider at around 3 IC to always have our standing troops at full strength.
Supplies: We should always keep or troops supplied with whatever they need at around 15 IC
Production: The IC left I would advise to build up our industry. When the industry is at an appropriate level, divide the budget as following:
30% for the Air Force
40% for the Navy
30% for the Army
Consumer Goods: Keep this locked at 60 IC to keep our good people happy.
Leadership 21 for science, 7 for intelligence, 4 for officers, 1 for diplomacy
We should focus a large part of our Leadership points into research, as this will help us to be able to strike if we are in need of this in the future.
For intelligence matters, I suggest focusing most of our spies at Germany, Italy, USSR, Japan and China. These are the biggest threats to us. We should also keep around 6 spies as homeland security to thwart enemy spies.
Officers are not much needed at the moment as the threat of war is not imminent. However this may change in the future, and therefore we should still focus a small part to officers.
The focus on diplomats is mostly to secure important trade agreements.
Science proposal
Army techs/doctrines: 5 points
Naval techs/doctrines: 5 points
Our navy has to be superior to anyone, as it will be easy to fend off invasions. I would also suggest to the Secretary of the Navy to focus on Carrier doctrines. These may be crucial in future naval warfare.
Aeroplane techs/doctrines: 5 points
Other techs: 6 points
The focus here should be for IC Efficiency. This will be important as it will help us field troops, ships and planes much faster. This may also include nukes in the future.
Signed: Senator Charles Beckendorf, MA
Foreign Policy: For now I would strongly advise to keep ourselves isolated at the moment. However if the threat from Germany or Japan becomes too high, we have to act. We cannot sit idly and see other countries infest the world with such thoughts as theirs.
Build or modernize? I would want a balanced budget for this. We need to improve the quality of our troops to continue to be a superpower; however I see the need to expand our industry to even further this opinion, and to remain superior.
IC Budget Proposal
Upgrades: We should keep the slider locked at around what is required to give our troops the newest weapons possible. I believe this was around 30 IC
Reinforcements: Keep the slider at around 3 IC to always have our standing troops at full strength.
Supplies: We should always keep or troops supplied with whatever they need at around 15 IC
Production: The IC left I would advise to build up our industry. When the industry is at an appropriate level, divide the budget as following:
30% for the Air Force
40% for the Navy
30% for the Army
Consumer Goods: Keep this locked at 60 IC to keep our good people happy.
Leadership 21 for science, 7 for intelligence, 4 for officers, 1 for diplomacy
We should focus a large part of our Leadership points into research, as this will help us to be able to strike if we are in need of this in the future.
For intelligence matters, I suggest focusing most of our spies at Germany, Italy, USSR, Japan and China. These are the biggest threats to us. We should also keep around 6 spies as homeland security to thwart enemy spies.
Officers are not much needed at the moment as the threat of war is not imminent. However this may change in the future, and therefore we should still focus a small part to officers.
The focus on diplomats is mostly to secure important trade agreements.
Science proposal
Army techs/doctrines: 5 points
Naval techs/doctrines: 5 points
Our navy has to be superior to anyone, as it will be easy to fend off invasions. I would also suggest to the Secretary of the Navy to focus on Carrier doctrines. These may be crucial in future naval warfare.
Aeroplane techs/doctrines: 5 points
Other techs: 6 points
The focus here should be for IC Efficiency. This will be important as it will help us field troops, ships and planes much faster. This may also include nukes in the future.
Signed: Senator Charles Beckendorf, MA
Last edited:
I am certainly amenable to a commission, what form would you propose? Perhaps I could perform a standard war game scenario using interceptors, and you using fighters? However, results would probably be a long time in coming. Perhaps you would be open to a compromise splitting the production budget between the two? As both types of fighters share the same techs this should not harm our research rate and will give us the capabilities of both.
Sen. Beckendorf - While I agree with much of the thought behind your proposal, I find it lacking in several areas:
1) We should fully utilize our production capabilities and natural resources by - for now - obtaining all supplies through trade
2) Upgrades should be postponed until at least one year of research is performed for maximum efficiency. Much of the upgrade cost is in our army units which are currently below the Great War tech level. Spending money now to upgrade them with 1918 equipment when we will have researched 1934 equipment in six months makes little sense to me.
3) I find the 40% IC budget for the navy quite excessive. Given that our navy is currently the strongest in the world, I would propose allocating only what is necessary to construct one or two carriers and associated modern light cruisers and Destroyers necessary to support their task groups.
4) I think that devoting 7 leadership to espionage is rather excessive in the long run, perhaps a more subtle number such as 3 could still keep us well informed without draining our research capabilities or provoking mistrust amongst the international community?
5) I would like to remind you that this is a one year budget only and that many of the technologies you propose researching (such as air, naval and industrial) are not feasible for two or three years. For reference see my already proposed bill.
Sen. Danner: Thank you for your continued support!
-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH]
Foreign Policy: Isolationism. We all know where the troubles come from. Europe and Asia, and our proud nation is not a part of any of those continents. They face a financial crisis as big as ours and it's not the same as in the Great War. And to be honest, I highly doubt we will see war in Europe for the next 50 years. So therefore we should politically focus on our own nation.
Build or modernize? This was a question I spent many hours thinking about, and frankly, I still do so. But I believe our main focus should be on building, currently our armed forces are one of the most modern armed forces in the entire world. If not the most modern! And I know just as well as any of you do that with the years even more new technologies will appear and I do believe we should adopt those within our branches but currently our main focus should be to build! And why? By placing orders within our own industry we generate jobs. We fuel the economy! And by merely letting some scientists think about how we can improve our armed forces we are not helping anyone.
Proposed budget for IC: 20% for the Army, 20% for the Navy, 15% for the Air Force and 55% for the Industry! Why? Because our industry needs the largest boost of them all. And with this we can keep our armed forces in place while our industry will only grow!
Leadership? 15 for Science, 5 for Intelligence, 7 for Officers and 4 for Diplomacy. I believe our research programs should enjoy some priority above other departments when it comes to dividing our experts. However, a reasonable part should go towards intelligence so we can assure that no nation plans to harm us and of course to keep up to date on what is happening around the globe. Our officers corps will of course have to train hard if we want to expand our military so therefore they receive a rather large budget. I also propose we give our diplomats more resources than we usually do. Because even though I think we should go into isolation I still think we should build up contacts with other nations.
Proposed tech budgets: 5 for industrial improvements, we should focus on getting more efficient machinery etc. The army should receive 2, the navy should receive 2, the air force should receive 2. That leaves 4 remaining to be divided over other techs or wherever the need is high. We should be flexible with this.
Signed,
Senator Nathan B. Mount of the State of New York.
Build or modernize? This was a question I spent many hours thinking about, and frankly, I still do so. But I believe our main focus should be on building, currently our armed forces are one of the most modern armed forces in the entire world. If not the most modern! And I know just as well as any of you do that with the years even more new technologies will appear and I do believe we should adopt those within our branches but currently our main focus should be to build! And why? By placing orders within our own industry we generate jobs. We fuel the economy! And by merely letting some scientists think about how we can improve our armed forces we are not helping anyone.
Proposed budget for IC: 20% for the Army, 20% for the Navy, 15% for the Air Force and 55% for the Industry! Why? Because our industry needs the largest boost of them all. And with this we can keep our armed forces in place while our industry will only grow!
Leadership? 15 for Science, 5 for Intelligence, 7 for Officers and 4 for Diplomacy. I believe our research programs should enjoy some priority above other departments when it comes to dividing our experts. However, a reasonable part should go towards intelligence so we can assure that no nation plans to harm us and of course to keep up to date on what is happening around the globe. Our officers corps will of course have to train hard if we want to expand our military so therefore they receive a rather large budget. I also propose we give our diplomats more resources than we usually do. Because even though I think we should go into isolation I still think we should build up contacts with other nations.
Proposed tech budgets: 5 for industrial improvements, we should focus on getting more efficient machinery etc. The army should receive 2, the navy should receive 2, the air force should receive 2. That leaves 4 remaining to be divided over other techs or wherever the need is high. We should be flexible with this.
Signed,
Senator Nathan B. Mount of the State of New York.
I would like to sign my name to this budget, except with one small change. We shouldn't use any leadership for Officers and only use 5 for Intelligence. And those 6 should be moved to research.
Senator Henry Heidelburg from California
I thank you for your support to my budget. To answer some of your questions; I feel we have to continue training our officers even if it is not war at the moment. This will make our new divisions more capable when the time comes. I thought of maybe a level of 2 points would be acceptable. The intelligence may also be reduced to the level you are proposing. I will submit another revised version after you reply with your views on this proposal.
1) I do believe that this might be a bad move. I see your point, however we might be ending up paying a nice sum of money to different countries. We would then have to produce more consumer goods to get this amount of money. I also have a feeling that countries around the world are building up their own industry, therefore we cannot rely on foreign suppliers.
2) On this I agree to you upon. We should rather wait until the research is finished. However my plan is meant to only apply if there are any units to upgrade in general. I do realise I have not made myself very clear on this point. ((I have not played very much HOI3 and I am not too familiar with the upgrade system))
3) I might reduce this in a revised budget. However I am convinced that we have to build up our fleet, as the Japanese have quite the large fleet themselves.
4) I have already thought of this when Senator Heidelburg brought this to my attention. I have been thinking that I have to revise this.
5) I am fully aware of potential problems. I will address them in a revised bill soon.
Senator Charles Beckendorf, MA
Last edited:
((I will be gone for the weekend so I will not be able to see the completion of our bill. If a vote is cast, without me participating, I would of course support our bill.))
Last edited:
I agree with mr. Beckendorf that we should increase our IC but I'd order even more factories, so when in need we could quickly build up strong army. I'd recommend building at least 60 factories in regions of country with small or no industry. Also sending spies to Soviet Union and China seems pointless, as those countries doesn't seem to threat world's stability at this moment. I'd also strongly advice to build up strong spy net in Japan, as this country seems to be agressive ( we all do remember the agression war in 1931).
Sen. Alvin Carl Miller, Arizona
Does this mean that you will support my bill if we are voting? If so, thanks a lot. We need all the support we can get.
((Avindian, I just looked at the front page and noticed that on the senator list that Massachusetts is missing. You might not have seen, but my character, Senator Charles Beckendorf, is from that state.))
Sir, I would suggest you take a look at my plan (prev. page) which focuses entirely on IC and infrastructure.
Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH]
With do all respect, senator, I would accept your bill if some changes would be made. What I propose is to increase our efforts to build up strong industry first ( and that means focus our IC on building factories and infarstructure on at least 70% of total IC) then build small and reliable army to defend homeland. Also sending spies to USSR and China should be revised, as those countries ( esp. China) are good partners and I don't think that they are dangerous for world's peace. With those changes inteligence could be lowered to 6, maybe 5,5 allowing us increase our research progress.
Sen. Alvin Carl Miller, Arizona
Mr. Rudolf, I'm always supporting the development of United States' industry, however we shouldn't forget about improtant things for safety our people. And I mean army here. Many men will find their work in army or navy, making our people feel safe. We shouldn't build a prosperous and rich farm in dangerous neighbourhood without securing in with iron fence, should we?
Sen. Alvin Carl Miller, Arizona
This is my plan exactly. I posted in my bill that we firstly have to built up our industry to an appropriate level. However if you look at post #110, you will see some proposed changes to the budget I have posted originally.
Looking at your plan for intelligence, I must say that even if they are good partners they are potentially dangerous. If the USSR or China beat their enemies, they might be dangerous. Therefore I would still want to keep them at minimum 2 priority if you cannot agree to 3.
((As I will be gone for the weekend I will post a current final bill. If you have not voted by Sunday afternoon I will maybe revise it according to eventual proposals of anyone. However, I cannot please everyone and at the same time vie for my own interests, though I try.))
Senator Charles Beckendorf, MA
Last edited:
I agree completely, which is why my budget includes the completion of the two carriers and several destroyers currently under production. However, building further army or naval units this year would be wasteful because of our techs. Our army is woefully backwards, with the military - industrial complex still geared to arming them with PRE - GREAT WAR EQUIPMENT! Even worse, the previous administrations have conducted virtually no research into the production or use of tanks - a technology which will clearly be a decisive feature of future conflicts. Furthermore while our navy is top notch new research and design programs promise to unlock new models which can then be laid down. As you say, building industry is a necessary feature of any plan, so I propose that we build only industry this year while researching and designing more effective armaments for the army and navy to be put into production in future budgets. This way we shall avoid producing arms which are obsolete before they are even finished! Once a more modern army has been designed, we can then use our carefully nurtured industries to produce it.
-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH]
((I must have missed it! Thanks for letting me know.
TankOfMidgets, Saithis currently has MacArthur as Chief of the Army; if you want to choose somebody else (available in 36), let me know. You won't have to do too much until we get a budget for you
))