BULGARIA ISSUE

[shri]

So, in a PBEM, i postponed the Belgium invasion to 1915 so that i could delay English entry and have a crack at Russia. It failed badly in 2 ways.

Russia stayed strictly defensive everywhere and dug in.
England swiped out Bulgaria in 1 turn with a massive deployment in Balkans.

This second part is my problem, SOFIA needs to be well defended with a Elite Corps and have nearby detachments. Bulgaria fallings pre-emptively and so easily means Turkey is exposed and the CP loses.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: shri

So, in a PBEM, i postponed the Belgium invasion to 1915 so that i could delay English entry and have a crack at Russia. It failed badly in 2 ways.

Russia stayed strictly defensive everywhere and dug in.
England swiped out Bulgaria in 1 turn with a massive deployment in Balkans.

This second part is my problem, SOFIA needs to be well defended with a Elite Corps and have nearby detachments. Bulgaria fallings pre-emptively and so easily means Turkey is exposed and the CP loses.

This is called the Bulgarian Gambit and it has been discussed a wee bit feel free to add your thoughts! [:D]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4880305

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: shri

So, in a PBEM, i postponed the Belgium invasion to 1915 so that i could delay English entry and have a crack at Russia. It failed badly in 2 ways.

Russia stayed strictly defensive everywhere and dug in.
England swiped out Bulgaria in 1 turn with a massive deployment in Balkans.

This second part is my problem, SOFIA needs to be well defended with a Elite Corps and have nearby detachments. Bulgaria fallings pre-emptively and so easily means Turkey is exposed and the CP loses.

This is called the Bulgarian Gambit and it has been discussed a wee bit feel free to add your thoughts! [:D]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4880305

Hi Shri

This was a proposal map that would help somewhat with this situation. For an understanding of this situation further, I would suggest you read the Bulgarian Gambit thread that Tanaka mentioned and whom posted the link in his post.

The devs gave the detachment in Sofia a boost with ground cover of +3..but its not proving sufficient. A mere swapping of the corp in Plovdiv to Sofia and the the detachment in Sofia to Plovdiv helps stop a one turn takedown of Bulgaria...but not entirely. In tests that I've done, this new setup can withstand a 3 corp attack. This at least allows the CP player some kind of response.

If its a massive invasion, as you say your experiencing, and no CP units are close to Nish to try to link up with the beleaguered Bulgarians even with this new set up, then you probably are still doomed. A Russian First strategy HAS TO include Serbia...because there is no pressure on the west, and French and/or Britsh forces will be in the Balkans.

Edit: This is just a proposed solution to help against attack from Serbia proper. It would probably be best if the detachment moved to Plovdiv as featured here was actually placed on the road south of the Bulgarian HQ to temporarily block an advance from Salonika also.

[Tendraline]

Indeed, it would also make sense for Bulgarian troops to have an extra bit of experience, as they have been veterans of two wars in the near past. Or, at least, the generalship should.

Of course, this could have grave balance implications, so beware.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Tendraline

Indeed, it would also make sense for Bulgarian troops to have an extra bit of experience, as they have been veterans of two wars in the near past. Or, at least, the generalship should.

Of course, this could have grave balance implications, so beware.

Yeah, the Bulgarians shouldn't be such a push over. The reasons they lost the Second Balkan War was because of being attacked from four sides (Serbia, Greece, Romania, and The Ottomans!) plus not much big power support. Anyone would crumple under a coalition like that. The Bulgarians sure did prove their meddle in the First Balkan War though.

For this situation, I think just a repositioning of the start units will fix the current situation..maybe even adding a detachment or two from their existing force pool onto the map may help.

[shri]

Wow, thanks guys. Specially TANAKA and OLDCROWBALTHAZAR, your Bulgarian Gambit link was very very interesting.

In 1918 Bulgaria did surrender as general war weariness had set in, but in 1915 it wouldn't have esp. if Germany sends re-assurance.
Also, the Bulgarian Artillery and Infantry was supposedly best in the Balkans, way better than Romania and Greece and equal or slightly better to Serbia. Morale was also high due to REVANCH.

Proposal - either starting position be filled with Corps dug in, the detachments in the north for holding OR
Alternate Capital in VARNA.

Without this CP loses way too much morale and further Ottomans have a high chance of getting knocked out on the cheap.

P.S.: Being a bad player taking Serbia without artillery is not happening with me.

[Bavre]

OldCrowBalthazor's proposal to switch the Detachment in Sofia with the Corps in Plovdiv seems to be the best solution in my eyes. I don't think a general strenghtening of the Bulgarian forces is necessary.
The problem here is really just the one turn sniping, not the overall strenght of Bulgaria. If the other CP forces are still too far away and E/FR troops are able to conduct a sustained offensive, then Bulgaria by all means should fall.

[Chernobyl]

Does it make sense for Bulgaria to only get 3 corps? I keep hearing they had the largest army in the Balkans. And I read supposedly they mobilized an additional 4th army in November 1915

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Does it make sense for Bulgaria to only get 3 corps? I keep hearing they had the largest army in the Balkans. And I read supposedly they mobilized an additional 4th army in November 1915

I agree with this....I almost think another corp should be on the map NW of Sofia

This is a table that was submitted by Dazo, and is on the Bulgarian Gambit thread...but it backs up what your proposing.
The First Army is probably 2 corps (not officially, but as a modeled in the game)
Second Army would be 1 corp and Third Army would be 1 corp. Thats a total of 4 corps and not 3 that is currently the set up when Bulgaria enters the war.
This would allow one extra corp to be placed on the map that would help thwart an alpha strike by an Entente player doing a sneak attack (or preemptive strike, take your pick haha) on Bulgaria

DAZO's TABLE:

Serbian border in the west:

Facing Nish in the north: 1st army (Boyadiev) with 4 infantry divisions (1-6-8-9) and 1 cavalry brigade.
(195,620 men and 422 guns)
Serbia: 2nd army (Stepanovik) with 3 infantry (Sumadija, Morava, Combined) and 1 cavalry (Danub) divisions.
(90,000 men and 248 guns)

Facing Uskub in the south: 2nd army (Todorov) with 3 infantry (2-3-7) and 1 cavalry divisions.
(99,497 men and 182 guns)
Serbia: Macedonian Legion (Boyovic)
(29,600 men and 50 guns)

Other:
Facing romanian border: 3rd army (Toshev) with 2 infantry divisions (4-5) and various fortress units/garrisons.

1st and 2nd army are the bulk of Bulgarian forces throughout the war:
- 616,680 men and 960 guns in september 1915 (3 armies)
- 697,157 men and 1,459 guns in september 1918 (4 armies)
- 420,597 men for Serbs in 1914 down to around 125,000 after retreat to the coast
Just to say: serbian commanders Stepanovik (2nd army) and Boyovic (1st army, promoted) got their revenge at Salonique in 1918.

[Chernobyl]

Just to be completely fair and balanced, I think it's pretty obvious that certain countries and armies (Serbia, possibly the Ottomans but I'm not an expert on the Ottoman army) get more corps than their absolute historical troop numbers. Serbia needs them in order to realistically defend in game.

Or if build limits mean anything, compare Italy which has a maximum of 15 regular corps vs Serbia which has a maximum of 5. A google image search tells me Italy put over 5 million men in the army while Serbia managed about 700K. So if Italy has 7 times as many men, shouldn't they get 5 x 7 = 35 buildable corps (or mobilize a similar proportion)? No because that would wreck game balance.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Yep, I agree. This one Corp extra idea is just that...but it might help. It's already in the force pool, but then, so are a few detachments.

It was Bavre in a prior post that said what's need to be fixed is the one turn 'sniping' of Bulgaria...and the issue of the CP player not getting any option of a response at all.

Of course, one answer is a strong effort by the CP to demolish Serbia, and at least get to Nish...but this didn't stop me from pulling a Bulgarian Gambit on Tanaka as featured in the other thread in a match 3 months ago...and I almost pulled one off in our current match.

Circumstances were a bit different but he got Bulgaria in the war about 2 turns before I had sufficient force with French troops I transported to Albania to do a sneak attack..in early 1915, even as he was crumbling my Serbs.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Does it make sense for Bulgaria to only get 3 corps? I keep hearing they had the largest army in the Balkans. And I read supposedly they mobilized an additional 4th army in November 1915

Bulgaria starts with 3 Corps, 3 Detachments and 1 HQ on the map, with the capacity to build 1 further Corps, HQ, Cavalry Corps and Artillery, and 2 more Detachments. Not including air units. So if we fix the potential for the Entente to effect a sudden knock out of Bulgaria, then the Central Powers will be able to increase the size of the Bulgarian army into a fairly sizeable force.

I hesitate to add any extra units for free in case it might upset play balance (unless there is an issue at present?) but giving them extra can be held in reserve if such a move is ever required.

[Chernobyl]

I think if it's unbalanced then don't give them a unit. But is it really unbalanced if 4th Army actually existed and Bulgaria's forces mustered were larger than Serbia or Romania?

Rereading the wikipedia on the Bulgarian 4th Army it sounds like "November 1915" may actually be a typo and perhaps it didn't exist until 1917. Not an expert on that myself.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Does it make sense for Bulgaria to only get 3 corps? I keep hearing they had the largest army in the Balkans. And I read supposedly they mobilized an additional 4th army in November 1915

Bulgaria starts with 3 Corps, 3 Detachments and 1 HQ on the map, with the capacity to build 1 further Corps, HQ, Cavalry Corps and Artillery, and 2 more Detachments. Not including air units. So if we fix the potential for the Entente to effect a sudden knock out of Bulgaria, then the Central Powers will be able to increase the size of the Bulgarian army into a fairly sizeable force.

I hesitate to add any extra units for free in case it might upset play balance (unless there is an issue at present?) but giving them extra can be held in reserve if such a move is ever required.

Ok..how about a simple swap on the map as portrayed on the above map? The corp in Plovdiv being moved to Sofia replacing the detachment there...and moving the detachment in Sofia to Plovdiv.

This was what I initially proposed. Also, then give the corp in Sofia the ground cover bonus like was done with the last version patch to the detachment that's there now with the current version...this wouldn't increase the Bulgarians initial deployment but would buttress Sofia a bit more, which I think is only really needed anyway.

[Chernobyl]

I just moved around the corps (1st Army north of Sofia, 2nd Army southwest of Sofia) and also gave them an extra "Macedonian Division" detachment as they did mobilize a few extra divisions which aren't portrayed on the map. Should be a solid defense to prevent sneak attacks in most reasonable pvp scenarios.

It might be impossible to prevent sniping of Bulgaria in all scenarios if you include a theoretical 1917 attack involving unlimited units and tech to throw at them. If you sent a 1917 French army against them complete with multiple artillery and aircraft and tanks, then yeah Bulgaria might still fall in one turn, and it would be impossible for the Ottomans alone to prevent a fall on turn 2.

But at least the above scenario is difficult to achieve. The only way to COMPLETELY prevent entente sniping of Bulgaria is to block all entente diplo chits to Bulgaria (seems to prevent declaring war also)

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I just moved around the corps (1st Army north of Sofia, 2nd Army southwest of Sofia) and also gave them an extra "Macedonian Division" detachment as they did mobilize a few extra divisions which aren't portrayed on the map. Should be a solid defense to prevent sneak attacks in most reasonable pvp scenarios.

It might be impossible to prevent sniping of Bulgaria in all scenarios if you include a theoretical 1917 attack involving unlimited units and tech to throw at them. If you sent a 1917 French army against them complete with multiple artillery and aircraft and tanks, then yeah Bulgaria might still fall in one turn, and it would be impossible for the Ottomans alone to prevent a fall on turn 2.

But at least the above scenario is difficult to achieve. The only way to COMPLETELY prevent entente sniping of Bulgaria is to block all entente diplo chits to Bulgaria (seems to prevent declaring war also)

Ahh...interesting. Anyway of posting a screen shot?

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

But at least the above scenario is difficult to achieve. The only way to COMPLETELY prevent entente sniping of Bulgaria is to block all entente diplo chits to Bulgaria (seems to prevent declaring war also)

There are two screens where you can declare war on a country, one is via the Diplomacy tab, which if diplomacy has been blocked to a country won't be available.

However, you can also declare war via the War Maps, and that should still be possible?

[The Land]

If looking at balancing Bulgaria, don't forget there is also a big late-game balance issue the other way, when Bulgarian Corps start getting German Infantry and Trench Warfare tech and turn into the Balkan Imperial Stormtroopers. More Corps, experience or better generals will only make that problem worse! One to bear in mind....

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: The Land

If looking at balancing Bulgaria, don't forget there is also a big late-game balance issue the other way, when Bulgarian Corps start getting German Infantry and Trench Warfare tech and turn into the Balkan Imperial Stormtroopers. More Corps, experience or better generals will only make that problem worse! One to bear in mind....

Yeah..I understand those issues. I think just a possible swap of existing units on the board as I presented further up the thread with a map image would do the trick.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: The Land

If looking at balancing Bulgaria, don't forget there is also a big late-game balance issue the other way, when Bulgarian Corps start getting German Infantry and Trench Warfare tech and turn into the Balkan Imperial Stormtroopers. More Corps, experience or better generals will only make that problem worse! One to bear in mind....

Yeah..I understand those issues. I think just a possible swap of existing units on the board as I presented further up the thread with a map image would do the trick.

Yes, I support this very modest change.