Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

We, the People -- A USA Interactive FTM AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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 vote for Option 3 as in times of war we should support our armed forces. Instead of saying "You have this to use for your branch", I believe it is more sensible to have them propose what they need, and for us senators to decide based upon those figures.

Senator Charles Beckendorf, D-MA
 
I vote for Option 2, it's best to have a specialist prepared to do this job!

~Senator Sarah Quentin O'Hanahan, D-OR

WSoxfan86 said:
On the bill, I would go with option 1. It gives the military the autority to build what they need. To General MacArthur, I hope for your sake that this operation succeds. Otherwise, I believe that a suitable replacement can be found.

On an unrelated topic, I've noticed that we are finishing a build of aircraft carriers. However, in both the Pacific and Atlantic, the battleship has been the workhorse of the navy. Therefore, I'd recommend the construction of a more modern class of Battleship ASAP.

Senator John Williams(R-MI)
Click to expand...

Senator Williams,

Thank you for your input regarding the Naval Budget and preparations. Although our current focus is on Naval Aviation (and we believe this should become the main focus of a modern military navy due to the power and flexibility of the dive bomber on the high seas), we do have plans to continue development of Battleships now and in the future. Currently, we are working on refining design schematics for the new Iowa class, which will hopefully come under construction next year. This should allow us to phase out older ships into the reserves and to eventually decommission our oldest battleships entirely.

~Admiral William H. Standley, Naval Chief of Staff
 
Saithis said:
Senator Williams,

Thank you for your input regarding the Naval Budget and preparations. Although our current focus is on Naval Aviation (and we believe this should become the main focus of a modern military navy due to the power and flexibility of the dive bomber on the high seas), we do have plans to continue development of Battleships now and in the future. Currently, we are working on refining design schematics for the new Iowa class, which will hopefully come under construction next year. This should allow us to phase out older ships into the reserves and to eventually decommission our oldest battleships entirely.

~Admiral William H. Standley, Naval Chief of Staff
Click to expand...
Admiral Standley
Excellent. Does the navy have preliminary plans on how many ships this class will compose? And also, wouldn't it be better to name the class the South Dakota class as it is the only state that we've never commisioned a BB for(and by default, that's the next ship name set up in the game)
-Senator Williams (R-MI)
 
Option 3
Senator Newman.
 
Avindian said:
Assuming you still want to be from Mississippi, you're fine.



General Bradley --

As long as the Chief of the Army approves, your plans seem sensible. ((Sorry about the TRG bit; I must have missed it! Anywhere in particular on the West Coast?))

President Willkie

I think I'm going to change the way we do budgets. It's the single longest/most involved part of the AAR, and drags down everything else. In the real life American government, the executive branch ((the President formally presents the budget, but other people obviously work on it too)) submits a budget to Congress, and Congress votes it up or down. So for the initial stage -- determine who gets how much IC/Leadership for a fiscal year, here are three proposals.

Therefore, what might work the best is one of three things:

1. Add "preparing the budget" to the Secretary of War's duties.
2. Create a new position -- Secretary of the Treasury -- that would be responsible for drafting the budget for IC and LS.
3. The Chiefs give me their requests (strictly numbers in this scenario), I put together a budget, and then you guys vote on it.

Option "3" is the way the actual budget process works today. In all three cases, the Party Leaders could still filibuster the budget (check the OP for more details) or make recommendations. Once the budget is approved, then the Chiefs decide how they want to spend their stuff.

So, let's vote on it! Indicate Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3. As always, bold your vote, and we'll close voting on Tuesday at 10 PM (-6 GMT).
Click to expand...

Mr. President,

I would recommend the TRG group be redeployed to southern California, the better to transport the requisite Army divisions to their defense positions on the Pacific Islands. I would also suggest that we hold one SAG group in reserve to engage an enemy invasion group, should it manage to get past our screens and actually start invading one of our outposts. Finally, I believe that our SAG group in the Straits of Malacca should based out of Singapore, if it is desirable to have it in the region at all.

Regards,

General Omar N. Bradley, C-in-C Pacific Theater
 
I vote option 3 the armed forces must have flexibility.

Senator Peter Dawson, D-MD
 
Poll

Option 1: 2
Option 2: 1
Option 3: 5

General Bradley --

The SAG in Malacca is there strictly for emergency repairs; I did not intend it to be a permanent station. If you have a better place for it, I will take your recommendation into account.

President Willkie
 
Mr. President, Chiefs of the Services:

The plans for Operations Fortitude and Tinderbox have been revised to reflect the changing conditions on the ground; please read them and re-approve them so that our planned operations may proceed.

Sincerely,
General Douglas A. MacArthur,
Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Theater

((They're accessible via the links on the front page. I've changed them significantly since the last incarnations, so you really should read them or you'll end up working from orders that are now impossible.))
 
General, what is the feasibility of having the strategic bombing wing based in Scapa Flo begin a logistics bombing campaign against the German supply train in Norway now? Allowing them to, at least partially, interdict supply flow to Trondheim. Failing that, how about turning our tactical, naval, and strategic bombers loose bombing German convoys or at least spotting for our submarine raiders?

Senator Newman
 
Last edited:
The only change to Southern Command's OOB is that the 2nd Bomber Squadron will absorb the 13th and 4th USAAF Tactical Bomber Wings. Local commanders should bear in mind that the U.S. Marine Corps will only be attached to Atlantic Southern Command until Gibraltar has been secured.
Click to expand...
I have proposed the creation of two(2) more corps of marines. One of which would be retained in the European Theater of Operations in order to make opposed landings in Sardinia, Sicily, and in the Balkans as needed. Opinions gentlemen?
Leroy Grumman
 
son of liberty said:
General, what is the feasibility of having the strategic bombing wing based in Scapa Flo begin a logistics bombing campaign against the German supply train in Norway now? Allowing them to, at least partially, interdict supply flow to Trondheim. Failing that, how about turning our tactical, naval, and strategic bombers loose bombing German convoys or at least spotting for our submarine raiders?
Click to expand...

Sadly, Secretary Grumman, none of our bombers have the range to reach Trondheim, but we can send our strategic bombers to bomb German supply lines in western Norway, and our tactical bombers can attack the German naval and air bases at Bergen in hopes of catching their ships in port and their planes on the runway. Our interceptors are still out of range, but we could move CTF Yorktown and its CAGs south to cover our bombers.

son of liberty said:
I have proposed the creation of two(2) more corps of marines. One of which would be retained in the European Theater of Operations in order to make opposed landings in Sardinia, Sicily, and in the Balkans as needed. Opinions gentlemen?
Leroy Grumman
Click to expand...

This would be the single most beneficial thing we could possibly receive at present. We have plenty of troops to conduct operations, but all the armies in the world won't do us any good unless we can carve out a landing zone. I support this proposal wholeheartedly.
 
TankOfMidgets said:
Mr. President, Chiefs of the Services:

The plans for Operations Fortitude and Tinderbox have been revised to reflect the changing conditions on the ground; please read them and re-approve them so that our planned operations may proceed.

Sincerely,
General Douglas A. MacArthur,
Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Theater

((They're accessible via the links on the front page. I've changed them significantly since the last incarnations, so you really should read them or you'll end up working from orders that are now impossible.))
Click to expand...

Thank you for your update, General. I will review them as soon as it is practical. I wonder if we should consider stepping up our reclamation of Gibraltar? It could be a) beneficial for troop morale and b) close the Mediterranean. I'm sure the Italian fleet has been relatively inactive, but all the same it's best not to take chances. I leave the decision in your hands and those of the Chiefs.

President Willkie
 
As long as the final power to authorize budgets remains with the Senate Option 3 will be most benificial in these hard times. As party leader of the Democratic Party I encourage any member who has objections against either this bill or any of the future bills to contact me. Together we can work on a proper solution if the need arises.

- Senator John Linton, D-FL
 
General MacArthur,

The plans for both Operations are sound, and you have the go-ahead.

BUT, The OOB for the 1st and 2nd Armored Corps will stay as is. New units are on their way fast and will be attached within the space of a few months, and re-organizing now will defeat the purpose of adding the reinforcements to the corps.

Sincerely,
General Craig,
Chief of the Army.
 
Avindian said:
Thank you for your update, General. I will review them as soon as it is practical. I wonder if we should consider stepping up our reclamation of Gibraltar? It could be a) beneficial for troop morale and b) close the Mediterranean. I'm sure the Italian fleet has been relatively inactive, but all the same it's best not to take chances. I leave the decision in your hands and those of the Chiefs.

President Willkie
Click to expand...

Mr. President,

We have moved the Gibraltar landing to top priority; indeed, as soon as our transports carrying the USMC arrive in Plymouth, they will be sent directly to Gibraltar. Breaking Italian dominance of the Mediterranean is a crucial step in winning this war, and we intend to open up the sea lanes as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
General Douglas A. MacArthur,
Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Theater

((Honestly, if three full divisions of Marines with naval support aren't enough to take Gibraltar, then it's probably easier to just DoW Nationalist Spain and take the other half of the Straits instead.))

Chimina said:
General MacArthur,

The plans for both Operations are sound, and you have the go-ahead.

BUT, The OOB for the 1st and 2nd Armored Corps will stay as is. New units are on their way fast and will be attached within the space of a few months, and re-organizing now will defeat the purpose of adding the reinforcements to the corps.

Sincerely,
General Craig,
Chief of the Army.
Click to expand...

General Craig,

Understood. I will revise my operational OOBs accordingly.

- MacArthur
 
Poll:

Option 1: 2
Option 2: 1
Option 3: 6

General Craig,

When we get to build orders, please make sure to include your plans for deploying the support brigades you've ordered; I've reviewed the paperwork and can't seem to find the destinations.

President Willkie
 
General Macarthur, please reassign my attached naval forces to general devers as a loan for his gibralter invasion. I can make due with limitedaircover until the operation is complete. I hope limited loss of our boys occurs. I pray a repeat of MY failed operation is our only reversal in this great war.

General Stillwell C-in-C Atlantic Northern Command
 
Polls are closed. Option 3 passes.

So here's the next step. I'd like Chimina, Saithis, and son of liberty to formulate preliminary tech and build ideas. These can be very general; the purpose is to give me an overall concept of what you want in FY 1942 and how much it will cost. Just focus on your particular area(s). Raw numbers are a must; other than that, it would be helpful if you could prioritize which techs and construction projects you consider absolutely schedule, including if you think any ought to be scrapped. Feel free to include luxury items as well, as in "It sure would be nice if we could..." After I get all three plans, I'll allocate resources based on my judgment, compile a final budget, and send it back to you all for further comments. If everything sounds great, we present it to the Senate, who votes on it.

Use a format like this one:

IC

Existing construction (total cost in IC)

New construction (itemize each area and provide a total).

Leadership

Total number of tech slots for your branch

Existing tech (to be kept)

New tech (same format we've been using).

I'll take general recommendations for the leadership budget as well.

I'd like preliminary plans in my inbox by Friday at 10 PM (-6 GMT). Senators, in the meantime, if there any bills you'd like to propose, knock yourselves out.
 
(( Alright, I'll whip something up for you in the next couple of days. ))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back