The purpose of this suggestion is to expand the diplomatic part of the game to make it more immersive (hopefully) and to use more of the ministers. What I have in mind is implementing a layered bureaucracy for the four ministries (foreign, armaments, security, intelligence). The amount of layers would be determined by the country’s IC and, naturally, availability of suitable (ie, close ideologically) ministers. Thus, a country like Latvia would have only the first layer—such as one man in the foreign ministry, and so on. Germany, on the other hand, may have more (with the world powers, this would depend more on minister availability than IC). Now, with this basic premise to something you may not understand yet (unless you’re quite insightful into the types of things I’d like to stick into a HoI3), I’ll move on to the main idea.
But first, a diagram, using the foreign ministry (of, say, Germany) as an example.
yes, it is damn ugly. it was a 10 second thing in paint and probably represents the pinnacle of my artistic ability.
Now, first off, preferably all these titles (and what they actually influence) would be dynamic (one reason being that the branches would be different for different countries, another being that diplomatic relations naturally break off during war).
Second, it allows for three levels of diplomatic priority. The lowest (and hence slowest to be responded to [yeah, another thing, having a delay before an answer as in CK would be nice, I think], and thus slowest to come back). This low priority would be the country-specific ministers. Medium priority would speed everything up and bump it to the head of the branch and high priority would go directly to the head minister of it all and take the least amount of time. This means that the different minister bonuses would come into effect (low priority would be the bonuses of the country-specific minister, etc…). finally, for very serious (and very rare) issues, there’s the omgomgomg priority that is the HoS/HoG [such as the conferences between FDR and Churchill, etc).
I think this structure could be relatively easily adapted to the other ministries. For example, security; there could be three branches for Germany: national security, western conquest security and eastern conquest security. Intelligence could be divided along the lines of military (what we know of their armed forces), and political (what we know of the conditions within their nation and whatever conquered territory they have). Armaments could be split between military and civilian. As there really isn’t ‘priority’ in the sense of a foreign ministry, each minister takes care of solely his own turf (meaning that, unless a balanced system of thought out, the ministers toward the top have less and less to do on their own if they have more and more bureaucracy below them though they take the credit usually—ie, if a good minister is at the top, he’ll take a prestige hit and not like it if he’s moved down, even if he’s better than his predecessor.)
Now, this structure doesn’t apply to the chief of staff or of the various military branches as they would presumably already have their infrastructure in place—the various military branches. As for the HoS and HoG, all of this is their infrastructure.
But first, a diagram, using the foreign ministry (of, say, Germany) as an example.
yes, it is damn ugly. it was a 10 second thing in paint and probably represents the pinnacle of my artistic ability.
Now, first off, preferably all these titles (and what they actually influence) would be dynamic (one reason being that the branches would be different for different countries, another being that diplomatic relations naturally break off during war).
Second, it allows for three levels of diplomatic priority. The lowest (and hence slowest to be responded to [yeah, another thing, having a delay before an answer as in CK would be nice, I think], and thus slowest to come back). This low priority would be the country-specific ministers. Medium priority would speed everything up and bump it to the head of the branch and high priority would go directly to the head minister of it all and take the least amount of time. This means that the different minister bonuses would come into effect (low priority would be the bonuses of the country-specific minister, etc…). finally, for very serious (and very rare) issues, there’s the omgomgomg priority that is the HoS/HoG [such as the conferences between FDR and Churchill, etc).
I think this structure could be relatively easily adapted to the other ministries. For example, security; there could be three branches for Germany: national security, western conquest security and eastern conquest security. Intelligence could be divided along the lines of military (what we know of their armed forces), and political (what we know of the conditions within their nation and whatever conquered territory they have). Armaments could be split between military and civilian. As there really isn’t ‘priority’ in the sense of a foreign ministry, each minister takes care of solely his own turf (meaning that, unless a balanced system of thought out, the ministers toward the top have less and less to do on their own if they have more and more bureaucracy below them though they take the credit usually—ie, if a good minister is at the top, he’ll take a prestige hit and not like it if he’s moved down, even if he’s better than his predecessor.)
Now, this structure doesn’t apply to the chief of staff or of the various military branches as they would presumably already have their infrastructure in place—the various military branches. As for the HoS and HoG, all of this is their infrastructure.
Upvote
0
