Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Ok now for some new stuff,these are also based on historical fact.Please note its not just Serbia who will be getting more military options to play with,the other Nations are all getting new historical stuff added.[;)]

Gonna have to think on this one?????

Turkish Air force makes its first appearance in game.[:D]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Ok now for some new stuff,these are also based on historical fact.Please note its not just Serbia who will be getting more military options to play with,the other Nations are all getting new historical stuff added.[;)]

Gonna have to think on this one?????

No need to think about it to hard,it is historical fact. ( Serbia can only use Fighters in game )


The idea to form air forces in the Serbian Army was first mentioned in the General Army Formation Act from 2 August 1893. This act envisioned that within each division of the Army of the Kingdom of Serbia be formed one air force balloon company.

Twenty years later, in 1912, a group of Kingdom of Serbia officers were sent abroad to school- to a Pilot Training Program in France. At the same time aircraft were purchased and by the Act of the Minister of War Marshal Radomir Putnik, on 24 September 1912 an Air Force Command was established in Niš. This places Serbia as one the first 15 states in the world to have had military air force at those times. A year later, during the siege of the town of Shkodra, Serbian Air Force had their baptism of fire. The first planes used in the Serbian military aviation was the Blériot XI and Farman HF.20.



Serbian Air force (Serbian Aviation - Srpska Avijatika) was the fifth ever air force founded in the world in 1912.


First World War

World War I started with Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia on June 28, 1914. The S.A.F (Serbian Air Force) saw action from day one. At the beginning of the World War I, Serbian pilots who were actually skilled and experienced from the Balkan Wars had succeeded to give the valuable information about the number, the movements, and the position of the enemy troops. They contributed to early Serbian victories in 1914 at Cer Mountain, Kolubara and Drina river. At the beginning of 1915, armed with machine guns and bombs, Serbian pilots succeeded to fight back the enemy by attacking their aircraft flying over the Serbian sovereign territory or by bombing the important targets in the background positions.

Serbia formed one of first truly powerful air defense units in Europe. This is due the massive onslaught of German and Austro-Hungarian aircraft. Serbian air defense units and air warning units were formed officially on June 8, 1915. The first airplane shot down by ground fire unit in WWI happened over skies of Serbia. During the German air attack on city of Kragujevac on September 30, 1915, air defense artillerist Radivoje "Raka" Lutovac - from regiment "Tanasko Rajić", shot his first hit, by his artillery modified gun, a Farman airplane with two crew members. Without any sophisticated cannon sights, he was aiming through the bore of his gun. This day is also a holiday of Serbian air defense. But the full control of the Serbian sky had been established in April 1915 when one well equipped and armed French squadron arrived as help from the allied forces to Serbian Aviation. Until the beginning of "Mekenzen" offensive in October 1915, French and Serbian pilots had succeeded to establish dominance in the air and to follow the enemy movements over the rivers Drina, Sava and Danube. They were also constantly bombing the hinder, the traffic and concentration of the enemy.

During the time of 1914-1915, the first Serbian-made planes were produced. They had been made mostly by craftsmen in various furniture factories. These early Serbian planes were used for training, since they were underpowered. While construction was Serbian, airplane motors were French-made. This aircraft design had the name 'PINGVIN', or 'Penguin class'. Only few of these were ever made. Although modest, this domestic design was inspiration for creating Serbian air industry after the First World War.

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: kirk23

ORIGINAL: Connfire

More random thoughts:

I always though the SG represented a type of "Home Guard", basically a city's last ditch defense. I really don't envision them having the same tech level as the front line infantry. If anything, they'd be using their own and obsolete weapons no longer suited for front-line service.

Small Garrison are not getting upgraded Tech and that's official.[;)]

Does that mean we will not see the below picture?[:(]

The Small Garrison has 1 Anti-Air attack strength,but that is as good as it will get.

ORIGINAL: Connfire

More random thoughts:

I always though the SG represented a type of "Home Guard", basically a city's last ditch defense. I really don't envision them having the same tech level as the front line infantry. If anything, they'd be using their own and obsolete weapons no longer suited for front-line service.

I'd have to see what the additional MP is in relation to the other countries before I could weigh in on that. Is just Germany's increasing, the CP, or everyone's? What were the original MP numbers based on?

Whether increasing PP vs. lowering the cost of units and techs, I do think that a delicate balance needs to be reached. At a certain point, the focus switches from building units to maintaining what you have. I actually do like that as I see it as nations reaching the limitations of their industry and manpower.

The way SGs are going to be utilized in the future, they really should be called a "Home Guard", that sounds more appropriate to their function. When SGs were out roaming the countryside, yes,, they were a Small Battalion (Special Ops), which kind of sounded out of place, where everything else is referred to be Corps size in nature.[;)]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Turkish Air force makes its first appearance in game.[:D]

Sultan Kirk,

I'm putting my order in for a full size red FEZ hat today![:D] I'm almost in shock,[X(] you are giving Turkey something to fight with![;)] I'm absolutely bowled over with this one.....

Pasha Bob [:)]

I thought you guys might be interested in this website link. http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Worl ... art-I.html

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I thought you guys might be interested in this website link. http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Worl ... art-I.html

I particularly liked this one....

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: Connfire

More random thoughts:

I always though the SG represented a type of "Home Guard", basically a city's last ditch defense. I really don't envision them having the same tech level as the front line infantry. If anything, they'd be using their own and obsolete weapons no longer suited for front-line service.

I'd have to see what the additional MP is in relation to the other countries before I could weigh in on that. Is just Germany's increasing, the CP, or everyone's? What were the original MP numbers based on?

Whether increasing PP vs. lowering the cost of units and techs, I do think that a delicate balance needs to be reached. At a certain point, the focus switches from building units to maintaining what you have. I actually do like that as I see it as nations reaching the limitations of their industry and manpower.

The way SGs are going to be utilized in the future, they really should be called a "Home Guard", that sounds more appropriate to their function. When SGs were out roaming the countryside, yes,, they were a Small Battalion (Special Ops), which kind of sounded out of place, where everything else is referred to be Corps size in nature.[;)]

I know in the State of Connecticut, USA, the local militia was called the Home Guard during World War I. I don't know if it was called other names in other States. This was different from the regular army and reserves, sort of a predecessor to the National Guard. In the UK it looks like it was called the Volunteer Force in WWI, but in WW2 it was called the Home Guard.

Hi Rob,I would like to call the Small Garrison the Home Guard,I had already renamed them in another thread,but the powers that be,don't like to upset the apple cart,or even take the odd risk now and again,I think you need to push the envelope once in a while,if you don't try something different,you won't learn anything,its natures way things need to evolve,or they wither and die.

I have made another addition for Turkey,the armoured train,I know she used them,especially during the Gallipoli campaign.[;)]

NB: The Armoured Train & Rail Gun,have had their stats tweaked,making them much better units to use in the game.[;)]

Hi Kirk,

My vote's for Home Guard, which is much more historically accurate.

Great work by the way. [&o]

Thank you Richard,I'm trying my very best to make this great game even better.[:D]

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have made another addition for Turkey,the armoured train,I know she used them,especially during the Gallipoli campaign.[;)]

NB: The Armoured Train & Rail Gun,have had their stats tweaked,making them much better units to use in the game.[;)]

Vanquisher of the Infidels aka Kirk,[&o]

You have been entered into the FEZ Hall of Heros, by secret ballot (actually only one ballet), Congratulations![:D] I hope the game supports the new units.

Balloter, Bob [:)]

ORIGINAL: Connfire

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: Connfire

More random thoughts:

I always though the SG represented a type of "Home Guard", basically a city's last ditch defense. I really don't envision them having the same tech level as the front line infantry. If anything, they'd be using their own and obsolete weapons no longer suited for front-line service.

I'd have to see what the additional MP is in relation to the other countries before I could weigh in on that. Is just Germany's increasing, the CP, or everyone's? What were the original MP numbers based on?

Whether increasing PP vs. lowering the cost of units and techs, I do think that a delicate balance needs to be reached. At a certain point, the focus switches from building units to maintaining what you have. I actually do like that as I see it as nations reaching the limitations of their industry and manpower.

The way SGs are going to be utilized in the future, they really should be called a "Home Guard", that sounds more appropriate to their function. When SGs were out roaming the countryside, yes,, they were a Small Battalion (Special Ops), which kind of sounded out of place, where everything else is referred to be Corps size in nature.[;)]

I know in the State of Connecticut, USA, the local militia was called the Home Guard during World War I. I don't know if it was called other names in other States. This was different from the regular army and reserves, sort of a predecessor to the National Guard. In the UK it looks like it was called the Volunteer Force in WWI, but in WW2 it was called the Home Guard.

Google search result:

Origins[edit]

From its founding years in the 1700s through the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops. [3] As a result of the Spanish-American War, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate the training and qualification of state militias. In 1903, with passage of the Dick Act, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed. It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, known as the organized militia, and "Reserve Militia" for all others.[4]

During World War I, Congress passed the National Defense Act of 1916, which required the use of the term "National Guard" for the state militias and further regulated them. Congress also authorized the states to maintain Home Guards, which were reserve forces outside the National Guards being deployed by the Federal Government.[5]

In 1933, with passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force.

The National Defense Act of 1947 created the Air Force as a separate branch of the Armed Forces and concurrently created the Air National Guard of the United States as one of its reserve components, mirroring the Army's structure.

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Hi Rob,I would like to call the Small Garrison the Home Guard,I had already renamed them in another thread,but the powers that be,don't like to upset the apple cart,or even take the odd risk now and again,I think you need to push the envelope once in a while,if you don't try something different,you won't learn anything,its natures way things need to evolve,or they wither and die.

No problem Kirk, I know you're doing your best. Based on what Operating and I provided it looks like it was the accepted term in the UK and US. But maybe the powers-that-be are favoring more generic terms over period ones for the sake of people playing in other languages? It's probably the same reason why we have "battleships" instead of "dreadnoughts" [;)]

ORIGINAL: operating

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I have made another addition for Turkey,the armoured train,I know she used them,especially during the Gallipoli campaign.[;)]

NB: The Armoured Train & Rail Gun,have had their stats tweaked,making them much better units to use in the game.[;)]

Vanquisher of the Infidels aka Kirk,[&o]

You have been entered into the FEZ Hall of Heros, by secret ballot (actually only one ballet), Congratulations![:D] I hope the game supports the new units.

Balloter, Bob [:)]

Cheers Bob![:)] Really glad you like,there is more to come watch this space.

Small Garrison new restricted range of movement see screen shot.Previous turn I moved the Small Garrison out of the City,and this turn,I can only move to the 3 hexes shown,you now can't stray from the City you start from.[:D]

Hi Kirk,

Can't find your post on naval bombardments. Personally I like the present use of it (effect and ammo cost). IIRC, You were talking about lowering the effect and raising the ammo cost, of which I am having mixed feelings about. What I am troubled about mostly is the effect part, Take Malta for instance: CP has 1 transport (Germany) and 1 transport (Turkey), in the past (usually SP) having naval dominance of the MED. SEA, I would try to take some of the islands or Gibralter, If the BB used, only caused efficiency loss, instead of causing unit step losses, it would be a pretty hard task to capture this or other locations. Units in transport would be losing their efficiency also, especially if they are trying to disembark onto an enemy held location (usually took a # of combined attacks to gain success) (or abandon the idea due to lack of defenders attrition losses). Galipoli is another scenario that would be almost impossible to get ashore, without Turkey step losses from BB bombardment. Antwerpt, would be toast if the English BBs and or cruisers were not able to cause CP step losses. As a rule most bombardments at present "might" cause a step loss and a loss of efficiency and would take a number of turns of hitting the same target, before resulting in a 2 step loss (usually from lowering efficiency from repeated attack turns). Yes, ammo looks to be more plentiful in the next patch (if bought), but that will be negated, with the increases to naval bombardment ammo costs and I believe the cost to air Bomber and fighter ammo costs (that part I agree with on air power), but am having trouble with the new restrictions on naval bombardment. If anybody has any antidotes or suggestions, please chime in both pro or con.

[&:], Bob

ORIGINAL: operating

Hi Kirk,

Can't find your post on naval bombardments. Personally I like the present use of it (effect and ammo cost). IIRC, You were talking about lowering the effect and raising the ammo cost, of which I am having mixed feelings about. What I am troubled about mostly is the effect part, Take Malta for instance: CP has 1 transport (Germany) and 1 transport (Turkey), in the past (usually SP) having naval dominance of the MED. SEA, I would try to take some of the islands or Gibralter, If the BB used, only caused efficiency loss, instead of causing unit step losses, it would be a pretty hard task to capture this or other locations. Units in transport would be losing their efficiency also, especially if they are trying to disembark onto an enemy held location (usually took a # of combined attacks to gain success) (or abandon the idea due to lack of defenders attrition losses). Galipoli is another scenario that would be almost impossible to get ashore, without Turkey step losses from BB bombardment. Antwerpt, would be toast if the English BBs and or cruisers were not able to cause CP step losses. As a rule most bombardments at present "might" cause a step loss and a loss of efficiency and would take a number of turns of hitting the same target, before resulting in a 2 step loss (usually from lowering efficiency from repeated attack turns). Yes, ammo looks to be more plentiful in the next patch (if bought), but that will be negated, with the increases to naval bombardment ammo costs and I believe the cost to air Bomber and fighter ammo costs (that part I agree with on air power), but am having trouble with the new restrictions on naval bombardment. If anybody has any antidotes or suggestions, please chime in both pro or con.

[&:], Bob

Your in a panic for no reason,naval Bombardment still causes Strength & Efficiency damage,and Ammunition cost is only 3.[;)]

If anyone needs a major reason, for keeping the Battleship fleet,then naval bombardment is the perfect answer.[:)]