Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AoD in Colour

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.
well i do not think that counter espionage has sth to do with the "minister of security" we have in HoI. usually counter espionage was done by the HoMI (just see the translation of the term "Abwehr", headed by Patzig and later Canaris. having googled quite a few of these people, i can say that in most cases its (at least for democracies) a post for internal affairs, like the british home secretary. the case of Himmler is a bit unique since he merged a govt post with a party post (not as a personal union like Göring did with Jägermeister, etc.).

Epaminondas said:
for a start, there wasn't even an Australian Federal Police force until 1979.
Click to expand...
there wasnt one either in GER until June 1936, AFAIK, just Länderpolizeien (appr. polices of the countries, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxonia, Bremen, etc)
 
I guess what I'm saying is that Australia, throughout this entire period, never developed the equivalent of the Sicherheitsdient, the Reichssicherheitsdienst, or even the Ordnungspolizei. As I understand it, the progressive subordination of the Landerpolizei began at Frick's urging in 1933, continued with the transfer of the Gestapo to SS control in 1934, and culminated in the full national co-ordination you mention in June 1936. Here we didn't even get to first base in that process.

In Australia, security - at any level and with whatever relation to intelligence and counter-intelligence - was a very decentralised business and remained so throughout and beyond the period. We had no equivalent of civil authorities like the M Departments or the FBI, and issues of criminality and physical threat were the responsibility of the states and devolved upon state ministers. The Minister for the Interior held almost no sway at all. The Minister for Defence was at least charged with responsibility for the security operations of the Military Board, so to me he's the best fit.

That said, and as I said, I have no complaint against using the Minister of the Interior for consistency's sake. But as you did say you wanted to get as close to reality as possible I thought it best to describe that reality as I understand it.
 
Last edited:
Epaminondas said:
I understand it, the progressive subordination of the Landerpolizei began at Frick's urging in 1933, continued with the transfer of the Gestapo to SS control in 1934, and culminated in the full national co-ordination you mention in June 1936.
Click to expand...
without looking anything up i would say no. Himmler was the driving power here. being head of the bavarian police he started to "collect" Länderpolizeien. first this was done Göring-style by mounting up posts and was finished in June 1936 when he became head of the german police (merging of the office of RFSS and Head of the german police) being de jure inferior to Frick, de facto independent (at least Peter Longerich says that).
OK but otherwise we seem to be fine!
 
It's clearly a side issue, and it's been a looong time since I read on this, but I think the process of 'collecting' the Landerpolizei began in 1933 as part of Frick's broader drive toward centralised control of everything he could lay his hands on. He found a ready ally in Himmler (and the reverse) since it was a move that would lessen Goering's ascendency within the Party, but constitutional provisions prevented this being achieved by administrative fiat. Instead, the states had to individually transfer their authority and this occurred over a few years and often in association with state elections. Again, I'm stretching the memory cords, but I have the idea that Bavaria was the last to be brought into line. The June 1936 action then combined this process with a comprehensive centralisation of all police functions and their transfer away from the Interior Ministry and to the SS.
 
bestmajor said:
well, he was 50 in 1940, i think the colour one is too old. mine is a painting btw.
Click to expand...
We're on the same page regarding the colour image... I guess it's one in the late stages of his career, and certainly post-1950 I'd say.
 
about the australian air force: what bothers me most is that Stanley Goble has the OG trait. there is no reason for it, as far as i can see (DoB 1891). the rest of the australian air force is okayish if you replace a few group captains with proper air commodores, iirc.
 
bestmajor said:
about the australian air force: what bothers me most is that Stanley Goble has the OG trait. there is no reason for it, as far as i can see (DoB 1891). the rest of the australian air force is okayish if you replace a few group captains with proper air commodores, iirc.
Click to expand...
Well, based on the info about him on Wikipedia, he was at least a controversial figure in the RAAF during WWII, and one of the WWI vets that went into early retirement after WWII...
 
bestmajor said:
about the australian air force: what bothers me most is that Stanley Goble has the OG trait. there is no reason for it, as far as i can
Click to expand...

None at all. Indeed on at least a couple of issues (making the RAAF a properly Australian Service rather than a de facto subsidiary of the RAF, and the establishment of a Fleet Air Arm) he proved to be a visionary. But then when has the OG trait in HoI ever been used in a way that accords with its claimed descriptors?

My guess is that his resignation/removal from office in 1939 landed him in the same boat as all the German officers retired in 1940 because of concerns over their commitment to Nazism and similarly tagged OG.
 
Epaminondas said:
But then when has the OG trait in HoI ever been used in a way that accords with its claimed descriptors?
Click to expand...
in my mod;)! assumption is that the usual retirement year is 57 for most generals. scenario start is 1936. 1936 minus 57 is 1879. so everybody born before 1880 is OG (except von Rundstedt). its not 100% executed in the files but 95%, i'd say. such rules are of course not always correct but help to avoid biased coding a lot.
 
Isn't that just age discrimination? ;) Though as a rough guide it would probably work. But personally I would opt for those who are 'Old Guard' in terms of tactics etc.
 
Hagar said:
Isn't that just age discrimination? ;) Though as a rough guide it would probably work. But personally I would opt for those who are 'Old Guard' in terms of tactics etc.
Click to expand...
it is indeed, but its possible to modify this again with base skill (ie Matsui Iwane is still useful for JAP since he has a high base skill). its just as i said without any rules - even if they are far fetched simplifations - prejudices rule (all germans are good and all frenchies unable and such things). impossible to work on several thousands of entries (which have 13 slots for values each) without such rules.
i used the OG for age only, base and max skill are interpretations (but both in a rather close range from 1 to 6 for most officers).
 
I'm with Hagar on this, major, but I know what you mean about establishing governing principles. For my own csvs I've been able to cobble up empirically based methods for determining who gets what trait - except for the OG. Given the luxury of working only with the majors I've found it possible to track down the length of time an officer spent in command of a given unit type, the awards and promotions he received and for what they were conferred, and in many cases the battle reports of their success in one type of action or another. But I've found mighty few references to an officer's failure to perform because of 'old-fashioned' thinking.

To me the simplest solution is to replace both the title and the criteria of the OG trait by something that is more directly measurable at this distance in time.
 
well you also have to know what ai will do with it. ie LW people often end up leading GARs - 513 (LW+OG) for sure. take Kulik as an example: the problem is that if you code him very bad, ai wont use him, so your code will be lost somehow.
it reqires a lot of testing to see what ai does with your code ingame (and eg AoD and DH behave differently, AFAIK).

Endibear said:
Hello, is there anything like leaders, ministers or unitnames out for Prussia (upr).
Click to expand...
most if not all of those people are german so you'll find them in the german folder. i would say you can take the unitnames from GER as well.
 
Epaminondas said:
Given the luxury of working only with the majors I've found it possible to track down the length of time an officer spent in command of a given unit type, the awards and promotions he received and for what they were conferred, and in many cases the battle reports of their success in one type of action or another.
Click to expand...

also for the Japanese? - any way. if you spot weird things in my CSVs, please let me know. problm is that most sites including wiki are often biased. they take eg a Wehrmachtsbericht for a valid source. also russian sites like http://warheroes.ru/ usually only mention positive things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back