(( Maybe I mis-understand, but don't you have to oppose a bill to filibuster it? ))
-
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.
This is the actual procedure on filibusters as written down by our dear leader:
Actual procedure for filibusters:
1. Bills are in final draft and due to be voted on.
2. Party leader says "I filibuster a vote for such and such a bill until such and such is taken care of."
3. We vote to override the filibuster (or not.) Bills may also be withdrawn for consideration if it gets too nasty by the original co-authors. (Both must agree).
4. After filibusters are dealt with, we go to normal voting procedure.
The way I read this is that can actually be in favour of a bill but you want a little thing to change in order for it to be perfect.
Im not sure whether it's worth all the efford to go F-voting on some minor technology spending changes though.
The entire mechanism is fairly complicated on its own in the first place.
That being said I'm also very honoured on being democratic party leader, albeit chosen quite undemocratic. (We might need to mend that issue)
- Sen. John Linton, D-FL
Actual procedure for filibusters:
1. Bills are in final draft and due to be voted on.
2. Party leader says "I filibuster a vote for such and such a bill until such and such is taken care of."
3. We vote to override the filibuster (or not.) Bills may also be withdrawn for consideration if it gets too nasty by the original co-authors. (Both must agree).
4. After filibusters are dealt with, we go to normal voting procedure.
The way I read this is that can actually be in favour of a bill but you want a little thing to change in order for it to be perfect.
Im not sure whether it's worth all the efford to go F-voting on some minor technology spending changes though.
The entire mechanism is fairly complicated on its own in the first place.
That being said I'm also very honoured on being democratic party leader, albeit chosen quite undemocratic. (We might need to mend that issue)
- Sen. John Linton, D-FL
Last edited:
Senator Newman has it right; you can't vote for a bill and then filibuster it -- one or the other. You can certainly be in favor of it, as Linton says below, but you can't actually vote and filibuster at the same time.
((I agree, simply making you leader by seniority IS undemocratic, but it will also get things moving again.))
Your logic is infallible, Senator. However, Senator Newman is also correct -- voting for a bill means you lose the right to filibuster that same bill.
Honorable fellow Senators,
As a mention of good will, if I were to change the officer recruitment part of my bill towards research, would you be willing to support it if you currently do not yet?
In effect, research will be the same throughout the year, and will be according to the second half year plan currently in the bill
Sincerely,
Senator De Brink, D-WY
As a mention of good will, if I were to change the officer recruitment part of my bill towards research, would you be willing to support it if you currently do not yet?
In effect, research will be the same throughout the year, and will be according to the second half year plan currently in the bill
Sincerely,
Senator De Brink, D-WY
In that case, i would propose lowering the officer recruitment programm, as well as implementing Mr.Sarigis research idea and you would have my vote, Mr. De Brink .
I also give my Consent to Mr. Sarigis , being our faction leader for now, until more members of the Left-Wing are assmbled for a proper voting.
-Senator Franz Vormüller (Left-Wing Radical - WA)
I also give my Consent to Mr. Sarigis , being our faction leader for now, until more members of the Left-Wing are assmbled for a proper voting.
-Senator Franz Vormüller (Left-Wing Radical - WA)
Fellow Senators,
I vote AYE on the Sharpe-Newman bill. The wild Democrat assertions that war is nigh are merely a repeat of their past attempts during the Great War to drag us into European affairs. China is holding their own against the Japanese Imperialists, proving that they are nothing but a paper tiger. While the situation in Europe is concerning, I have high hopes that the annexation of Austria and the the Sudetenland will quell much of Germany's nationalism. If war does come however, surely the French with their large and well equipped army and air force will be able to bring the Krauts to the peace table. Now is not the time for war, it is time for development and recovery from the Great Depression. Conscripting thousands of our best and brightest into our military during peacetime is unnecessary and will only drain our private sector, hindering economic recovery. Another downside of the Democrat bill is that it imposes arbitrary restrictions on the research budgets without dynamically accounting for the actual technological situation. I think that we should trust our military experts to pursue the most promising fields of study, though with proper congressional oversight.
Another concern of mine is the construction of these "super heavy" battleships by the navy. It is clear to all that the aircraft carrier, not the battleship is the future of naval warfare. We have already demonstrated that a single bomber can sink a battleship, so why is the navy wasting so much of their budget on three of these floating targets? I would like to hear from the secretary of the navy on this issue.
-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH]
((apologies for my lack of participation of late RL has kept me very busy. I'll try to keep up more now that things have calmed down a bit. Also, perhaps in the future we should have members of the party elect their leaders?))
I vote AYE on the Sharpe-Newman bill. The wild Democrat assertions that war is nigh are merely a repeat of their past attempts during the Great War to drag us into European affairs. China is holding their own against the Japanese Imperialists, proving that they are nothing but a paper tiger. While the situation in Europe is concerning, I have high hopes that the annexation of Austria and the the Sudetenland will quell much of Germany's nationalism. If war does come however, surely the French with their large and well equipped army and air force will be able to bring the Krauts to the peace table. Now is not the time for war, it is time for development and recovery from the Great Depression. Conscripting thousands of our best and brightest into our military during peacetime is unnecessary and will only drain our private sector, hindering economic recovery. Another downside of the Democrat bill is that it imposes arbitrary restrictions on the research budgets without dynamically accounting for the actual technological situation. I think that we should trust our military experts to pursue the most promising fields of study, though with proper congressional oversight.
Another concern of mine is the construction of these "super heavy" battleships by the navy. It is clear to all that the aircraft carrier, not the battleship is the future of naval warfare. We have already demonstrated that a single bomber can sink a battleship, so why is the navy wasting so much of their budget on three of these floating targets? I would like to hear from the secretary of the navy on this issue.
-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH]
((apologies for my lack of participation of late RL has kept me very busy. I'll try to keep up more now that things have calmed down a bit. Also, perhaps in the future we should have members of the party elect their leaders?))
Senator Newman,
Could you please clarify how the research listed in your budget will be distributed among the services?
- Senator Stephen McCarthy (D-TX)
((son of liberty, if you could go ahead and decide how many slots each service will get, that would be a big help for planning purposes. It's kind of hard to plot out what techs MacArthur will order when I'm not sure how many slots I have to play with.
Also, I haven't seen anyone else report in, so I currently have the following players listed as active: Sakura_F, son of liberty, Jos Ballenbak, Sirce, SovietAmerika, Chimina, Saithis, Sethanon, Greek HOI3, arosenberger14, Vrael_1492, tyriet, and Chimpanzee That. If you're not on that list, post your activity in this thread or PM me by 10 PM CST (-6 GMT) tomorrow so that I can add you before I send it in to Avindian.))
Could you please clarify how the research listed in your budget will be distributed among the services?
- Senator Stephen McCarthy (D-TX)
((son of liberty, if you could go ahead and decide how many slots each service will get, that would be a big help for planning purposes. It's kind of hard to plot out what techs MacArthur will order when I'm not sure how many slots I have to play with.
Also, I haven't seen anyone else report in, so I currently have the following players listed as active: Sakura_F, son of liberty, Jos Ballenbak, Sirce, SovietAmerika, Chimina, Saithis, Sethanon, Greek HOI3, arosenberger14, Vrael_1492, tyriet, and Chimpanzee That. If you're not on that list, post your activity in this thread or PM me by 10 PM CST (-6 GMT) tomorrow so that I can add you before I send it in to Avindian.))
Senator. Unless I stand over the shoulder of our professional research staff, I cannot know what techs are most efficient when. I do not want to give 9 slots to the army then find out that their available techs are 2 years in advance while the navy and the air corps have extra techs a year or two behind in researching. I would defer to the expertise of our various scientists and service chiefs to determine exactly what to research when. The only caveat being education and industrial technologies which I would suggest be prioritized at every opportunity. I hope that this answers your concerns. Barring that, maybe the service chiefs could inform us of their long term technology goals and the senate could then micromanage which techs get researched when?
Thank you, Senator Richard Newman, (R) Georgia
((Re: Leader elections. The most suitable thing would be, I think, to have them after this update. We'll discuss it then.))
Poll is now:
Newman-Sharpe: 6
DeBrink-Beckendorf: 4.
Poll is now:
Newman-Sharpe: 6
DeBrink-Beckendorf: 4.
General MacArthur. Could you please explain why the army is seriously lagging in artillery, especially anti-aircraft artillery and doctrinal research? I commend the Navy and Air Corps on their research, though I am also concerned over the time and money wasted on SHBB research and construction. I would like to hear your report before this committee as soon as possible. I also note a lack of research in combat engineering, bridging and assault guns as well as a complete lack of research into special equipment for our marines and rangers(mtn); not to mention a lack of special equipment for desert and jungle terrains. I think an explanation is due. I commend the armaments minister for keeping most of his research up to date. It seems mainly the army is sorely lacking. Thank you general for your attention to this matter. I eagerly await your response. Senator Newman, Georgia.
Senator Newman,
While I respect your opinion, I believe your concerns about the state of the Army are largely unwarranted, as you will shortly observe from my testimony about each area of concern.
Artillery: We are currently in the process of modernizing our artillery. Indeed, I have been approving the development of new artillery pieces for the past three years; I am unsure why our researchers have only now succeeded. ((I've been trying to upgrade arty for a while but it's been overridden by other techs.))
Anti-Aircraft Artillery: Our research suggests that stationary anti-aircraft brigades are generally ineffective at actually destroying aircraft, as planes can avoid area-burst explosions with relative ease, and are typically armored to prevent damage from the small-fragment ordinance that our AA guns use. If we someday develop a weapon that can target and track hostile aircraft specifically, as opposed to shooting at an area and hoping to hit the explosion, then my opinion may change. For the foreseeable future, however, the Army has no plans to fund AA research, and intends to leave the job of keeping the skies clear to the Army Air Corps. ((AA brigades are basically useless and we should just build/research fixed AA emplacements if we want AA.))
Doctrines: I would like to point out that our Army academies are presently hard at work developing doctrines that best employ our new equipment. That said, we cannot develop doctrines that take advantage of our forces' capabilities until we have actually developed those capabilities; once we complete research of our motorized infantry, we will be able to create doctrines that employ their speed and firepower to best advantage. ((Doctrines upgrade units instantly once researched, so we can wait until after we've developed better equipment for our units before we actually research them.))
Engineering Equipment: Up until this point, specialized engineering equipment has been difficult to develop and test, largely due to the Army Corps of Engineers' ongoing deployment to assist the Civilian Conservation Corps, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Public Works Administration. If Congress were to release the Corps from those programs, then we would have the personnel and resources to develop such tools. ((Engineering techs were research-inefficient before this year, and ENG techs are low-priority for me ATM because we have no ENG units.))
Special Forces Equipment: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about, Senator Newman. Could you clarify what, specifically, we have failed to research? ((I'm not sure what you're asking about, but we only have enough MP for a full 5 division x 3 brigade corps of either MAR or MTN, so there's no point in upgrading both ATM.))
Special Terrain Equipment: Much of the equipment that you've described simply won't be of use to us. I will grant that an anti-malarial doctrine would be useful, but its development was prohibitively expensive until recent developments made it practical; given our large naval transport capacity and the solid Franco-British control of North Africa, I fail to see why we would need to develop desert equipment. ((Jungle was research-inefficient before this year, and we can use naval landings to avoid most of the desert in North Africa - we can leave the British/Free French to mop up the Italians, and just grab the VPs/resources and move on.))
As for your general sentiment that "the army's research is sorely lacking," I would like to point out that - despite the low priority given to our service - we have managed to create the first truly armored forces on earth from the ground up, while enhancing the quality of our far more numerous infantry. If Congress sees fit to grant me more resources than I have currently been granted, I might be able to address some of the shortcomings that you mentioned; until then, I must prioritize the units that are currently in service. ((Unlocking SPART, ARM, and MOT units has consumed a lot of my research, especially since we don't have good practicals for mobile/armor at present.))
Sincerely,
General Douglas MacArthur,
CO West Coast U.S. Army Group,
Chief of Staff of the United States Army
While I respect your opinion, I believe your concerns about the state of the Army are largely unwarranted, as you will shortly observe from my testimony about each area of concern.
Artillery: We are currently in the process of modernizing our artillery. Indeed, I have been approving the development of new artillery pieces for the past three years; I am unsure why our researchers have only now succeeded. ((I've been trying to upgrade arty for a while but it's been overridden by other techs.))
Anti-Aircraft Artillery: Our research suggests that stationary anti-aircraft brigades are generally ineffective at actually destroying aircraft, as planes can avoid area-burst explosions with relative ease, and are typically armored to prevent damage from the small-fragment ordinance that our AA guns use. If we someday develop a weapon that can target and track hostile aircraft specifically, as opposed to shooting at an area and hoping to hit the explosion, then my opinion may change. For the foreseeable future, however, the Army has no plans to fund AA research, and intends to leave the job of keeping the skies clear to the Army Air Corps. ((AA brigades are basically useless and we should just build/research fixed AA emplacements if we want AA.))
Doctrines: I would like to point out that our Army academies are presently hard at work developing doctrines that best employ our new equipment. That said, we cannot develop doctrines that take advantage of our forces' capabilities until we have actually developed those capabilities; once we complete research of our motorized infantry, we will be able to create doctrines that employ their speed and firepower to best advantage. ((Doctrines upgrade units instantly once researched, so we can wait until after we've developed better equipment for our units before we actually research them.))
Engineering Equipment: Up until this point, specialized engineering equipment has been difficult to develop and test, largely due to the Army Corps of Engineers' ongoing deployment to assist the Civilian Conservation Corps, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Public Works Administration. If Congress were to release the Corps from those programs, then we would have the personnel and resources to develop such tools. ((Engineering techs were research-inefficient before this year, and ENG techs are low-priority for me ATM because we have no ENG units.))
Special Forces Equipment: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about, Senator Newman. Could you clarify what, specifically, we have failed to research? ((I'm not sure what you're asking about, but we only have enough MP for a full 5 division x 3 brigade corps of either MAR or MTN, so there's no point in upgrading both ATM.))
Special Terrain Equipment: Much of the equipment that you've described simply won't be of use to us. I will grant that an anti-malarial doctrine would be useful, but its development was prohibitively expensive until recent developments made it practical; given our large naval transport capacity and the solid Franco-British control of North Africa, I fail to see why we would need to develop desert equipment. ((Jungle was research-inefficient before this year, and we can use naval landings to avoid most of the desert in North Africa - we can leave the British/Free French to mop up the Italians, and just grab the VPs/resources and move on.))
As for your general sentiment that "the army's research is sorely lacking," I would like to point out that - despite the low priority given to our service - we have managed to create the first truly armored forces on earth from the ground up, while enhancing the quality of our far more numerous infantry. If Congress sees fit to grant me more resources than I have currently been granted, I might be able to address some of the shortcomings that you mentioned; until then, I must prioritize the units that are currently in service. ((Unlocking SPART, ARM, and MOT units has consumed a lot of my research, especially since we don't have good practicals for mobile/armor at present.))
Sincerely,
General Douglas MacArthur,
CO West Coast U.S. Army Group,
Chief of Staff of the United States Army
This seems like a good time to bring up tech priorities. Maybe this is a dumb question, but if there are 35 slots and 35 techs, the actual order is irrelevant, right?
In my humble opinion we shouldn't question our Army this much. This branch has been heavily underrepresented in the division of resources over the last few years. Thus unlike the Navy and the Air Force we will just have to accept that our army isn't as big and, maybe, as versatile as we'd like. My own draft budget proposal actually proposed to spend far more resources on the Army, but unfortunately it couldn't find enough support. General MacArthur is doing an excellent job at giving us a modern, motorized army without spending some of his meagre resources on fancy toys.
Senator Rudolf has a far better question in why we are building heavy battleships instead of something that is not a floating target. I'm awaiting a response on that.
- Sen. John Linton, D-FL
Senator Rudolf has a far better question in why we are building heavy battleships instead of something that is not a floating target. I'm awaiting a response on that.
- Sen. John Linton, D-FL
Senators, Representatives,
I, Chief Admiral William H. Standley, am surprised at the lack of faith the Senate has shown in our Navy to make the right decisions. Because you are not all trained in military matters, I can understand however that you might not always understand the intricacies of war, but let me assure you that the battleship project is not simply a waste of resources - far from it, in fact. Battleships still have an important role in the event of further global conflict, a role that few other ships can provide with such admirable impact.
It is no secret that the US Navy has been increasing the funding and quality of her Naval Aviation programs, and it should be no surprise to any of you that the US Navy will continue to do so. However, you seem to expect us to do this completely at the neglect of our battleships - ships which have long since held an important value in our Navy, and will continue to do so. I allocated no small part of our resources to ensuring that the US Navy had the best and largest battleship in the world in the case of Prototype 1 (which we're calling the Montana for now, but the commissioning department hasn't settled on a name). I will explain in a few parts my reasoning for ordering Prototype 1 and her two accompanying battleships:
1) It is believed by Naval intelligence that the current US battleships are obselescent in comparison to the latest British and Japanese models, and even to the KMS Bismarck produced in Germany. Although we have numbers, we do not have technological superiority.
2) Battleships are key parts of Naval strategy. It is all well and good to say that a plane may strike from a far greater distance and do equal damage, but a plane comes with its own weaknesses. Carriers are floating targets, with little in the way of anti-aircraft or surface defences of her own. They require large amounts of fuel and supplies, are much higher maintenance, and cannot defend themselves if they are caught. Although it is all well and good to assume that things will always go in our favour, the US Navy cannot predict the weather, nor will her scout planes be 100% guaranteed of locating the enemy. In the event that enemy battleships close in to our fleets, would you condemn our carriers to be exposed uncontested? Battleships exist to challenge other battleships, to protect our carriers from harm, and operate much better in bad weather where planes may be grounded or simply cannot see the opponent reliably. Additionally, the ability of the Battleship to conduct shore bombardment in support of our marines and Army fighting along the shorelines is invaluable and something that carriers cannot replace with the same kind of consistency. A battleship can place accurate, reliable fire deep inland with the help of radio guidance and our firing control systems - and more intense fire support than army artillery is currently capable of offering. Control of the sea and an adequate number of battleships will ensure that the US Navy is flexible enough to support the Army and Army Air Force in defeating any opponent, anywhere.
3) Battleships offer more than just a military purpose. Battleships have long served as the faces of the Navy and indeed of the entire US Military. A ship like Prototype 1 could become a symbol for our entire nation, which the country can stand behind and feel pride in. Prototype 1 according to our research is currently the largest and most powerful battleship in the world under construction bar none, and it will make a statement to the world that the US has more resources, better engineers and a better navy than anyone. In the event of a war, ships like Prototype 1 can go a long way to increasing our war bonds investment, but her size and intimidation value may help to make a statement against the Imperial Japanese and Royal Navies. The best way to prevent a war that America does not currently want would be to display our superior capabilities to the enemy - Prototype 1 effectively does that.
4) The US Aircraft Carrier designs are currently considered to be slightly inferior to leading Japanese designs, something that the US Navy cannot abhor. This is possibly the most important reason why we have ordered the battleships. The two North Carolina class battleships are very modern vessels (although development of a new Iowa class is underway which we believe will blow the world away, it is currently too far away in practical terms to invest material in). Naval engineering experts have identified key flaws in the current Yorktown class carriers. We believe that these flaws should be fixed as they will vastly increase the efficiency of refueling and repair efforts, as well as the safety of our pilots, crewmen.
5) Just to clarify, 3 battleships is a small investment in terms of what our nation can produce if we go to war. It is not so long since Woodrow Wilson proposed a fleet of 50 battleships to protect our shores, a move Washington rejected as anti-diplomatic. We can handle the expense of a few modern battleships that will allow our older ships to go into retirement sooner.
To explain the US Navy's current plan:
1) We will finish the development of Prototype 1 and the two more North Carolina battleships - the last planned of their lineage.
2) By this point, new development of the Essex class should be complete, and we have plans to produce ten of these vessels, plus two modern light cruisers to provide extra escort capacity and carrier aircraft to deploy from them. This would give us a fleet of 15 top-quality supercarriers and ensure that we are the greatest navy on earth. Add in 15 modern battleships and we have a Navy that no one can match.
3) During this time, research and development into the Iowa-class Battleship and continuing improvement on the Essex class will hopefully continue, so that by the mid-40s, we can begin looking to phase our oldest ships out with Iowa Battleships and even newer carriers.
I hope that the Congress finds the opinions of the experts on this matter satisfactory, as the US Naval Researchers have after long debate and long research decided that this is our greatest path to ensure the Navy is well-received at home and in the event of war. No nation with an ounce of sanity would attack a nation with such a powerful navy at her disposal, and if a war should come to our doorstep, or we should find cause to make war, no Navy in the world shall stand before us when the time comes.
Thank you for listening, I welcome your thoughts and I hope that the Senate will understand why we have taken the measures we have.
~William H. Standley, US Naval Chief of Staff
(( OOC: As an aside, I'm a little surprised at all the Battleship hate because at this point, the true power of Naval Aviation wasn't 100% clear, and HOI carriers are arguably a bit overpowered compared to real ones (although only a bit). I'm trying to play this a bit historically rather than just game the system, and the Battleship was still the main ship in every navy for various reasons, only Japan and the USA had truly good naval aviation programs and it wasn't until they fought that it was completely clear how powerful the carriers were in comparison. I don't mind the criticism, but I just hope everyone won't try and push me into playing the completely gamey path when we have ridiculous amounts of IC to spend on fun stuff like the often-underused SHBB. What I don't get is how can you resist the allure of building the world's biggest battleship and having the Senate name it something ridiculously patriotic like the USS Manifest Destiny!
In any case we still have plenty of time to spam out carriers like zerg when the war gets serious. ))
Senators,
I urge you all to show your support for the DeBrink-Beckendorf bill, with or without the officer investment. If my fellow senators deem to remove the officer investment, I still continue to support, I simply urge you to pass what is clearly the better bill for our great nation!
~Senator Sarah Quentin O'Hanahan, D-OR
I, Chief Admiral William H. Standley, am surprised at the lack of faith the Senate has shown in our Navy to make the right decisions. Because you are not all trained in military matters, I can understand however that you might not always understand the intricacies of war, but let me assure you that the battleship project is not simply a waste of resources - far from it, in fact. Battleships still have an important role in the event of further global conflict, a role that few other ships can provide with such admirable impact.
It is no secret that the US Navy has been increasing the funding and quality of her Naval Aviation programs, and it should be no surprise to any of you that the US Navy will continue to do so. However, you seem to expect us to do this completely at the neglect of our battleships - ships which have long since held an important value in our Navy, and will continue to do so. I allocated no small part of our resources to ensuring that the US Navy had the best and largest battleship in the world in the case of Prototype 1 (which we're calling the Montana for now, but the commissioning department hasn't settled on a name). I will explain in a few parts my reasoning for ordering Prototype 1 and her two accompanying battleships:
1) It is believed by Naval intelligence that the current US battleships are obselescent in comparison to the latest British and Japanese models, and even to the KMS Bismarck produced in Germany. Although we have numbers, we do not have technological superiority.
2) Battleships are key parts of Naval strategy. It is all well and good to say that a plane may strike from a far greater distance and do equal damage, but a plane comes with its own weaknesses. Carriers are floating targets, with little in the way of anti-aircraft or surface defences of her own. They require large amounts of fuel and supplies, are much higher maintenance, and cannot defend themselves if they are caught. Although it is all well and good to assume that things will always go in our favour, the US Navy cannot predict the weather, nor will her scout planes be 100% guaranteed of locating the enemy. In the event that enemy battleships close in to our fleets, would you condemn our carriers to be exposed uncontested? Battleships exist to challenge other battleships, to protect our carriers from harm, and operate much better in bad weather where planes may be grounded or simply cannot see the opponent reliably. Additionally, the ability of the Battleship to conduct shore bombardment in support of our marines and Army fighting along the shorelines is invaluable and something that carriers cannot replace with the same kind of consistency. A battleship can place accurate, reliable fire deep inland with the help of radio guidance and our firing control systems - and more intense fire support than army artillery is currently capable of offering. Control of the sea and an adequate number of battleships will ensure that the US Navy is flexible enough to support the Army and Army Air Force in defeating any opponent, anywhere.
3) Battleships offer more than just a military purpose. Battleships have long served as the faces of the Navy and indeed of the entire US Military. A ship like Prototype 1 could become a symbol for our entire nation, which the country can stand behind and feel pride in. Prototype 1 according to our research is currently the largest and most powerful battleship in the world under construction bar none, and it will make a statement to the world that the US has more resources, better engineers and a better navy than anyone. In the event of a war, ships like Prototype 1 can go a long way to increasing our war bonds investment, but her size and intimidation value may help to make a statement against the Imperial Japanese and Royal Navies. The best way to prevent a war that America does not currently want would be to display our superior capabilities to the enemy - Prototype 1 effectively does that.
4) The US Aircraft Carrier designs are currently considered to be slightly inferior to leading Japanese designs, something that the US Navy cannot abhor. This is possibly the most important reason why we have ordered the battleships. The two North Carolina class battleships are very modern vessels (although development of a new Iowa class is underway which we believe will blow the world away, it is currently too far away in practical terms to invest material in). Naval engineering experts have identified key flaws in the current Yorktown class carriers. We believe that these flaws should be fixed as they will vastly increase the efficiency of refueling and repair efforts, as well as the safety of our pilots, crewmen.
5) Just to clarify, 3 battleships is a small investment in terms of what our nation can produce if we go to war. It is not so long since Woodrow Wilson proposed a fleet of 50 battleships to protect our shores, a move Washington rejected as anti-diplomatic. We can handle the expense of a few modern battleships that will allow our older ships to go into retirement sooner.
To explain the US Navy's current plan:
1) We will finish the development of Prototype 1 and the two more North Carolina battleships - the last planned of their lineage.
2) By this point, new development of the Essex class should be complete, and we have plans to produce ten of these vessels, plus two modern light cruisers to provide extra escort capacity and carrier aircraft to deploy from them. This would give us a fleet of 15 top-quality supercarriers and ensure that we are the greatest navy on earth. Add in 15 modern battleships and we have a Navy that no one can match.
3) During this time, research and development into the Iowa-class Battleship and continuing improvement on the Essex class will hopefully continue, so that by the mid-40s, we can begin looking to phase our oldest ships out with Iowa Battleships and even newer carriers.
I hope that the Congress finds the opinions of the experts on this matter satisfactory, as the US Naval Researchers have after long debate and long research decided that this is our greatest path to ensure the Navy is well-received at home and in the event of war. No nation with an ounce of sanity would attack a nation with such a powerful navy at her disposal, and if a war should come to our doorstep, or we should find cause to make war, no Navy in the world shall stand before us when the time comes.
Thank you for listening, I welcome your thoughts and I hope that the Senate will understand why we have taken the measures we have.
~William H. Standley, US Naval Chief of Staff
(( OOC: As an aside, I'm a little surprised at all the Battleship hate because at this point, the true power of Naval Aviation wasn't 100% clear, and HOI carriers are arguably a bit overpowered compared to real ones (although only a bit). I'm trying to play this a bit historically rather than just game the system, and the Battleship was still the main ship in every navy for various reasons, only Japan and the USA had truly good naval aviation programs and it wasn't until they fought that it was completely clear how powerful the carriers were in comparison. I don't mind the criticism, but I just hope everyone won't try and push me into playing the completely gamey path when we have ridiculous amounts of IC to spend on fun stuff like the often-underused SHBB. What I don't get is how can you resist the allure of building the world's biggest battleship and having the Senate name it something ridiculously patriotic like the USS Manifest Destiny!
In any case we still have plenty of time to spam out carriers like zerg when the war gets serious. ))Senators,
I urge you all to show your support for the DeBrink-Beckendorf bill, with or without the officer investment. If my fellow senators deem to remove the officer investment, I still continue to support, I simply urge you to pass what is clearly the better bill for our great nation!
~Senator Sarah Quentin O'Hanahan, D-OR
General. Thank you for your quick and erudite reply. This is why my original thought was to leave all research in the hands of the experts deciding only what budget you have and allowing you chiefs along with the armaments minister and the president to manage that investment as you see fit. With admiral Standley's answer concerning the SHBB, which I still believe to be a mistake but I am not an admiral, I resume my previous posture of allow you 6 to define actual research parameters. The omly caveat being that we need education to be fully funded and prioritized whenever possible. Thank you gentlemen and resume your good works.
Senator Newman (R) Georgia.
((I have no issue with the BB's, just the SHBB which I consider a waste imo))
Senator Newman (R) Georgia.
((I have no issue with the BB's, just the SHBB which I consider a waste imo))
(( Understandable - the SHBB is kinda crap compared to a standard battleship since it doesn't receive any upgrades, but I do maintain that it makes an epic flagship and a toy rarely used even when there's plenty of resources to go around!
))
Fret not, Senator Linton: though our doctrines are somewhat outdated at present, our completion of new weaponry will enable us to update our doctrines to fit the demands of modern warfare. Rest assured that America's army will remain a pioneer in armored warfare without sacrificing the integrity of our infantrymen.
Not a problem, Senator; I'm pleased that we've justified your faith in us. With your support, we will continue to defend America's people from aggression around the globe.
Thank you Admiral for your quick and informative reply. I can accept your reasoning behind the current production of battleships, and am enthused for your plans for future carrier building. While I may not agree with your precise timetables and the "super heavy" battleship, I can accept them. On another note I would strongly urge you to not neglect our screening ships. Destroyers and Cruisers are as necessary on the modern battlefield as battleships and carriers.
-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH].
-Sen. Thomas Rudolf [R-OH].
Voting is closed. I will sign Newman-Sharpe into law. Here it is again.
Draft Budget Proposal 1939
The past two years our nations has seen remarkable progress both in military and economic development. For the next fiscal year we must continue in this manner and therefore I propose the following budget :
Leadership:
Officers: 0 Technology should be our primary concern. At this point it would be largely wasteful to spend anything on new officers. However, when we have the ability to chance our laws, we must invest heavily in this sector.
Diplomacy: 0.25 This should be enough for normal trade transactions.
Espionage: 1.0 A small but effective intelligence agency will be sufficient to keep tabs on non-democratic aggressors.
Research: 34.04 remains for efficient study of new technologies.
Technology Plan:
Research efficiency should be our primary concern here. There is no use spending precious leadership on technologies that are too advanced to finish in less than a year. At this point I don't know if any research has been put into the development of naval bombers. Since a war in the Pacific is most likely to happen, I feel naval bombers can help us tremendously in curbing the IJN's naval power. With a few naval bomber squadrons stationed in the Philippines we could effectively block ships free passage from the South China Sea to the Philippine Sea and vice versa.
IC Distribution:
Upgrades: 0 As we will be researching many new designs upgrading should be left until next year when they are complete. There's is no point in upgrading obsolete equipment into less obsolete ones.
Reinforcement: .25 this should cover retirements and any other needs.
Supplies: I suggest allocating more IC into supplies grudually each year, let's say 5.0 IC to familiarize our factories with the manufacturing process.
Consumer Goods: Whatever is required for zero dissent. Currently we need 43.92 IC, but I suggest putting it at 45 IC so we have a little buffer for unexpected events.
Production: Taking into my proposals into consideration I would allocate 15 IC on land, 25 on sea, 20 on air force, 55 on buildings, thus leaving 1.75 IC to spare. The 55 IC for buildings should be divided into factories and naval forts. Some Japanese convoys are bound to slip through our naval blockades and we can't risk losing one of our Pacific islands. That's why I'm suggesting to reinforce a few key positions like Guam, Midway and possibly Seattle and of course provide them with a garrison. 10 IC for forts should be considered to be acceptable, thus leaving 45 IC for other buildings. Furthermore I would advice to spread the density of our industry a bit further by building at least two new factories in Georgia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no specific technology guidelines, I would ask my military chiefs -- General Westover, General MacArthur, and Admiral Standley -- to recommend a suitable division of technologies. Just the number of slots, at this time, not any specifics. After I've decided on that, you can then send your specific build and tech orders. Also, some of the scientists working on your projects have asked for more recommended technologies when we do get that far -- four per slot. That way they can make sure the most suitable individuals are ready for each project. As a reminder, specific build instructions or technology recommendations are to be treated as advice and not binding upon your commands.
I'd like to have the technology question settled tomorrow night by 10 PM CST (-6 GMT). ((You can post in the thread; just say, Army X, Navy Y, Air Force Z, Buildings A.)) I'll choose the best possible plan or make my own judgment.
((I'm targeting a Wednesday update. If a major decision has to be made, I'll call an emergency session of Congress and we'll just vote on that one issue, so watch the thread!))
Draft Budget Proposal 1939
The past two years our nations has seen remarkable progress both in military and economic development. For the next fiscal year we must continue in this manner and therefore I propose the following budget :
Leadership:
Officers: 0 Technology should be our primary concern. At this point it would be largely wasteful to spend anything on new officers. However, when we have the ability to chance our laws, we must invest heavily in this sector.
Diplomacy: 0.25 This should be enough for normal trade transactions.
Espionage: 1.0 A small but effective intelligence agency will be sufficient to keep tabs on non-democratic aggressors.
Research: 34.04 remains for efficient study of new technologies.
Technology Plan:
Research efficiency should be our primary concern here. There is no use spending precious leadership on technologies that are too advanced to finish in less than a year. At this point I don't know if any research has been put into the development of naval bombers. Since a war in the Pacific is most likely to happen, I feel naval bombers can help us tremendously in curbing the IJN's naval power. With a few naval bomber squadrons stationed in the Philippines we could effectively block ships free passage from the South China Sea to the Philippine Sea and vice versa.
IC Distribution:
Upgrades: 0 As we will be researching many new designs upgrading should be left until next year when they are complete. There's is no point in upgrading obsolete equipment into less obsolete ones.
Reinforcement: .25 this should cover retirements and any other needs.
Supplies: I suggest allocating more IC into supplies grudually each year, let's say 5.0 IC to familiarize our factories with the manufacturing process.
Consumer Goods: Whatever is required for zero dissent. Currently we need 43.92 IC, but I suggest putting it at 45 IC so we have a little buffer for unexpected events.
Production: Taking into my proposals into consideration I would allocate 15 IC on land, 25 on sea, 20 on air force, 55 on buildings, thus leaving 1.75 IC to spare. The 55 IC for buildings should be divided into factories and naval forts. Some Japanese convoys are bound to slip through our naval blockades and we can't risk losing one of our Pacific islands. That's why I'm suggesting to reinforce a few key positions like Guam, Midway and possibly Seattle and of course provide them with a garrison. 10 IC for forts should be considered to be acceptable, thus leaving 45 IC for other buildings. Furthermore I would advice to spread the density of our industry a bit further by building at least two new factories in Georgia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no specific technology guidelines, I would ask my military chiefs -- General Westover, General MacArthur, and Admiral Standley -- to recommend a suitable division of technologies. Just the number of slots, at this time, not any specifics. After I've decided on that, you can then send your specific build and tech orders. Also, some of the scientists working on your projects have asked for more recommended technologies when we do get that far -- four per slot. That way they can make sure the most suitable individuals are ready for each project. As a reminder, specific build instructions or technology recommendations are to be treated as advice and not binding upon your commands.
I'd like to have the technology question settled tomorrow night by 10 PM CST (-6 GMT). ((You can post in the thread; just say, Army X, Navy Y, Air Force Z, Buildings A.)) I'll choose the best possible plan or make my own judgment.
((I'm targeting a Wednesday update. If a major decision has to be made, I'll call an emergency session of Congress and we'll just vote on that one issue, so watch the thread!))