Slitherine

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

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?????

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

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?

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Turkish Air force makes its first appearance in game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

I thought you guys might be interested in this website link. http://www.allworldwars.com/German-World-War-I-Postcards-Part-I.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Connfire

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

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,

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

Balloter, Bob

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Battleship targets Infantry unit,that has no entrenchment level,after the Infantry unit foolishly moved into a coastal hex,there can only be one outcome,when 12" or even 15" shells start to fall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello again Kirk,

Hypothetical Question: Would it be possible to have a Entente cruiser deploy to the Persian Gulf? If so, Could it exit the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea?

Just thinking, Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello again Kirk,

Hypothetical Question: Would it be possible to have a Entente cruiser deploy to the Persian Gulf? If so, Could it exit the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea?

Just thinking, Bob

Or, Could a troop transport act as a supply ship to disembarked unit or units on the shoreline of the Persian Gulf? (tried it in SP the transport would not supply the disembarked)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello again Kirk,

Hypothetical Question: Would it be possible to have a Entente cruiser deploy to the Persian Gulf? If so, Could it exit the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea?

Just thinking, Bob

Or, Could a troop transport act as a supply ship to disembarked unit or units on the shoreline of the Persian Gulf? (tried it in SP the transport would not supply the disembarked)

I came at the problem from a different direction,I have made Basra a Capital,with the result no supply problem anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

quote:

ORIGINAL: operating

Hello again Kirk,

Hypothetical Question: Would it be possible to have a Entente cruiser deploy to the Persian Gulf? If so, Could it exit the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea?

Just thinking, Bob

Or, Could a troop transport act as a supply ship to disembarked unit or units on the shoreline of the Persian Gulf? (tried it in SP the transport would not supply the disembarked)

I came at the problem from a different direction,I have made Basra a Capital,with the result no supply problem anymore.

That's OK for scenarios during and after 1915. I am trying to think of how to handle a supply problem for 1914 invasions. Just how were the British successful in capturing Basra in the first place? As indicated in later scenarios. Of course we know historically there were ships there to support invasions, just trying to search for a way in the game to keep Turkey on it's toes.

Sometimes in MP an opponent will think I have abandoned Kuwait and Basra and land some units there, only to get demolished by lesser quality troops, because they are "red dot" out of supply. I can live without the supply issue or the senseless Persian Gulf invasions, but somebody went through the effort to place deployment hexes at the edge of the Gulf map. Why not make better use of them? Like deploying warships there, like around Malta, ect.. ect.. (maybe a gunboat) or make troop transports a kind of supply ship too. It must be a PITA to do, sorry to bring it up.

<edit>

I'm not keen on the idea of giving Basra to England in the 1914 scenario. Make them work for it.....