Attempting to Fulfill the Plan MNKh Edition

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Do note, just to explain it, Quotas are starving out the old peasants that have not yet moved so that they join the new systems at a far faster pace. Price cuts are causing their living standards to collapse because their grain sells for effectively nothing.
 
[X]Price Cuts and Quotas: The inefficient peasants that these reforms will target have so far resisted any change. Thus, through harsher quotas and price cuts, it should be possible to speed up the changes. (Stage 4 immediately available) (+20 Resources per Turn) (Steady ULAG increase)
[X]Push the Reform: It would be a shame for the bulk of the newly trained personnel to be called down when their service is up, and it would atrophy their skills. Thus, it is time for reform to strengthen the Union. (-15 Party Influence)
 
Cuts and Quotas basically fucks over people for no reason. We can literally get the same result with just waiting for 1 year after Cuts. It's not like there won't be other options to take in agriculture.
 
I very much would like to argue for the nonquota options, as we are just going to be killing people to speed things up a tiny bit more. We decided last time to fight collectivization to a stop. I don't see the real difference between that and this, as we are just going out of our way to be murdering assholes to the peasants for only 10 Political Influence. We can take the hit, we are going to do well, we do not need to starve people to death.
 
What would be ideal would be to enforce quotas but to only cut prices by a small amount. The quotas would force poorly run and technologically backward farms to falter, leading many farm workers to either join collective farms or go to find work in the cities, and the small price cuts wouldn't completely gauge the flesh off peasants but again work to tie many of them into collective farms as a way of mitigating these economic troubles or to look for work elsewhere. Either way, rapid urbanisation caused by peasants being forced into cities for work was basically one of the foundations for rapid industrialisation.
 
What would be ideal would be to enforce quotas but to only cut prices by a small amount. The quotas would force poorly run and technologically backward farms to falter, leading many farm workers to either join collective farms or go to find work in the cities, and the small price cuts wouldn't completely gauge the flesh off peasants but again work to tie many of them into collective farms as a way of mitigating these economic troubles or to look for work elsewhere. Either way, rapid urbanisation caused by peasants being forced into cities for work was basically one of the foundations for rapid industrialisation.
Again the purpose of the quota option is to break up the peasants as fast as possible, that's its entire point.
 
*sigh*

The quotas will make the peasants blame the government for literally trying to starve them out. They will resist (where do you think the new gulag inmates come from?) and out of spite will likely burn their remaining grain and slaughter their livestock, as they did historically, causing a drop in food production.

Food production drops means we can say goodbye to hitting that target.
 
*sigh*

The quotas will make the peasants blame the government for literally trying to starve them out. They will resist (where do you think the new gulag inmates come from?) and out of spite will likely burn their remaining grain and slaughter their livestock, as they did historically, causing a drop in food production.

Food production drops means we can say goodbye to hitting that target.
Eh, that's going too far. It will be only a slight drop and we will easily be able to make up for it. Like it's not going to cause famine or something. Hitting the target is doable with it.
 
Eh, that's going too far. It will be only a slight drop and we will easily be able to make up for it. Like it's not going to cause famine or something. Hitting the target is doable with it.
A slight drop can mean the difference between hitting the target and not! And that's assuming we won't have to spend a turn fixing the results of this stupidity that we can't spend on growing more food.
 
[X]Price Cuts Only: There is no need to do anything too radical. A simple set of price cuts will change the peasants' quality of life sufficiently to encourage changes to more efficient systems. (-10 Party Influence) (Stage 4 available in a year) (+10 Resources per Turn
[X] Push the Reform: It would be a shame for the bulk of the newly trained personnel to be called down when their service is up, and it would atrophy their skills. Thus, it is time for reform to strengthen the Union. (-15 Party Influence)
 
I very much would like to argue for the nonquota options, as we are just going to be killing people to speed things up a tiny bit more.
And here's the thing: will we even have the spare resources to invest in these new stages right away? I think we have more important projects to take care of as is.
As already said, we don't need lots of experienced NCO's right now. We will need them by 1940-1941, with WWII in full swing.
By then, we should have enough lieutenants to do that job.
Well, that's the thing: experienced NCOs don't materialize out of thin air. To gain experience, they need time and lieutenants do not do the job of sergeants.
 
[X]Price Cuts and Quotas: The inefficient peasants that these reforms will target have so far resisted any change. Thus, through harsher quotas and price cuts, it should be possible to speed up the changes. (Stage 4 immediately available) (+20 Resources per Turn) (Steady ULAG increase)

[X] Push the Reform: It would be a shame for the bulk of the newly trained personnel to be called down when their service is up, and it would atrophy their skills. Thus, it is time for reform to strengthen the Union. (-15 Party Influence)

In addition to working on Magnitogorsk, developing the Kuznetsk coal deposits should help our rail situation some by reducing the distance coal has to travel to get to the Ural industrial cities.

As for the peasant situation, well, we need to get more soldiers and more expendable laborers somewhere. And our having an actual viable alternative available for the peasants already should help reduce the grumbling somewhat, or at least reduce the sympathy from the non-recalcitrant peasantry.

EDIT: It's not just the winters, it's the spring and fall rains. Neither of those would be fun without good boots and coats.
 
Last edited:
As for the peasant situation, well, we need to get more soldiers and more expendable laborers somewhere.
No we don't.
1) We're only doing a small military buildup, so we literally don't lack for soldiers. Also, the idea that starving peasants that resent the government will join the military and make good, loyal soldiers is silly.
2) Purges are coming up and the gulags will get filled at record speeds. We literally won't have need for even more laborers.
 
Last edited:
We really should give them more coats, or something. What the deal with 6 month long winter anyway?

en.wikipedia.org

Siberia - Wikipedia


Well, it's not like it's on average below freezing 5 months of the year or anything....

--
And fine, let's loose out on the PI to keep the peasants slightly less unhappy with us.

[X]Price Cuts Only: There is no need to do anything too radical. A simple set of price cuts will change the peasants' quality of life sufficiently to encourage changes to more efficient systems. (-10 Party Influence) (Stage 4 available in a year) (+10 Resources per Turn)
[X]Remain Non-Commital: There is no need to risk political standing for something that is the generals' purview. (Nothing Happens)
 
Last edited:
[X]Price Cuts Only: There is no need to do anything too radical. A simple set of price cuts will change the peasants' quality of life sufficiently to encourage changes to more efficient systems. (-10 Party Influence) (Stage 4 available in a year) (+10 Resources per Turn)

Would rather not have the peasants getting ideas.
 
Again the purpose of the quota option is to break up the peasants as fast as possible, that's its entire point.
Can you further explain what you mean by "break up"? In OTL, by 1933 two thirds of the peasant population had been forced onto collective farms, cultivating 85% of land, but in this quest by 1933 forced collectivisation has effectively been abandoned in favour of breaking up large estates into individual plots, treating peasants effectively as agricultural workers, sparing the majority of the kulaks, and encouraging collectivisation through voluntary and educational means. Quotas could also come in varying different forms and methods of application. Given that we've not had a mass forced collectivisation having occurred over a short period of time in this quest, a lot of the agricultural sector should still be individual plots which could be taxed by maintaining the "Ural-Siberian" method of village taxation which actually favours the poorer peasantry by spreading out the burden to richer peasants with more land - the rich peasants complain and get punished for resisting but unlike forced collectivisation it didn't effect everyone in the countryside as badly.
 
[X]Price Cuts Only: There is no need to do anything too radical. A simple set of price cuts will change the peasants' quality of life sufficiently to encourage changes to more efficient systems. (-10 Party Influence) (Stage 4 available in a year) (+10 Resources per Turn)
[X] Push the Reform: It would be a shame for the bulk of the newly trained personnel to be called down when their service is up, and it would atrophy their skills. Thus, it is time for reform to strengthen the Union. (-15 Party Influence)
 
Well, that's the thing: experienced NCOs don't materialize out of thin air. To gain experience, they need time and lieutenants do not do the job of sergeants.

The whole point of OTL soviet style setup was that they made up for low retention of NCOs by overabundance of officers. Something we´re already doing.

Our plan calls for little quantative buildup until end of 1938. At that point, we will have 1 million men and a need to increase that number by factor of five (or higher) in something like 3 years.
We won´t have enough experienced NCOs in any case (in fact, with retention we will have even less of them available due to them not going into reserves - so, less NCOs to mobilize). And our plan has as it´s focus creation of enough commissioned officers to not need an experienced NCO core (even if they'd be nice to have).

And that's without mentioning a significant PI hit incurred by pushing such a reform.
 
Can you further explain what you mean by "break up"? In OTL, by 1933 two thirds of the peasant population had been forced onto collective farms, cultivating 85% of land, but in this quest by 1933 forced collectivisation has effectively been abandoned in favour of breaking up large estates into individual plots, treating peasants effectively as agricultural workers, sparing the majority of the kulaks, and encouraging collectivisation through voluntary and educational means. Quotas could also come in varying different forms and methods of application. Given that we've not had a mass forced collectivisation having occurred over a short period of time in this quest, a lot of the agricultural sector should still be individual plots which could be taxed by maintaining the "Ural-Siberian" method of village taxation which actually favours the poorer peasantry by spreading out the burden to richer peasants with more land - the rich peasants complain and get punished for resisting but unlike forced collectivisation it didn't effect everyone in the countryside as badly.
So the purpose of the quotas would be to free up "volunteers" for other projects that you are currently undertaking. As the voluntary and educational flood has been judged far too slow by most of the people, and instead of the breakup alone, the quest went to alternative methods of organization. See the cooperatives and new towns. In this case, the issue is that the planners are very much seeing constant delays in peasants moving over, creating issues in the plan. Thus, comes the idea suggested by the party to just ramp the quotas to reasonable ones for the mechanized agriculture, and apply them per peasant. In effect rapidly shifting the state of farming.

The whole point of OTL soviet style setup was that they made up for low retention of NCOs by overabundance of officers. Something we´re already doing.

Our plan calls for little quantative buildup until end of 1938. At that point, we will have 1 million men and a need to increase that number by factor of five (or higher) in something like 3 years.
We won´t have enough experienced NCOs in any case (in fact, with retention we will have even less of them available due to them not going into reserves - so, less NCOs to mobilize). And our plan has as it´s focus creation of enough commissioned officers to not need an experienced NCO core (even if they'd be nice to have).

And that's without mentioning a significant PI hit incurred by pushing such a reform.
The purpose of the reform would be to in effect replace the bulk of the conscripts with a steadily expanding pool of experienced NCOs. Like, the point of the reform is to keep on the NCO's that are trained in the academy for a further massive ramp-up of the military. Think Weimar Germany for what it would look like.
 
Back
Top