Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2

[Tendraline]

It has to be noted that whether or not a country's units or government would continue fighting even after their largest cities have been taken is mostly speculation, as we only have a handful of examples in WWI, namely Belgium, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Serbia, and Russia. Of these, only Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro had a choice, as Russia collapsed from within as well and Luxembourg, barely having an army, was overrun.

Meanwhile, alternate history scenarios such as, say, whether the Bulgarian army would withdraw to Eastern Thrace or large portions of the French fleet would defect to the Royal Navy after surrender are impossible to figure out. With such a small sample size, the in-game premise that if you lose this, this, and this city you capitulate is fishy at best.

Maybe in future versions of Strategic Command we could have a morale indicator for each minor as well as each major so that we can avoid these issues, with each country only withdrawing if their morale hits 0. Instead of simply keeping you in the war, capitals should be focus points for recruitment and reinforcement. If World War II is any indicator, it is that, unlike France, most countries will choose to fight in exile if they could.

[Bavre]

ORIGINAL: Tendraline

It has to be noted that whether or not a country's units or government would continue fighting even after their largest cities have been taken is mostly speculation, as we only have a handful of examples in WWI, namely Belgium, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Serbia, and Russia. Of these, only Belgium, Serbia, and Montenegro had a choice, as Russia collapsed from within as well and Luxembourg, barely having an army, was overrun.

Meanwhile, alternate history scenarios such as, say, whether the Bulgarian army would withdraw to Eastern Thrace or large portions of the French fleet would defect to the Royal Navy after surrender are impossible to figure out. With such a small sample size, the in-game premise that if you lose this, this, and this city you capitulate is fishy at best.

Maybe in future versions of Strategic Command we could have a morale indicator for each minor as well as each major so that we can avoid these issues, with each country only withdrawing if their morale hits 0. Instead of simply keeping you in the war, capitals should be focus points for recruitment and reinforcement. If World War II is any indicator, it is that, unlike France, most countries will choose to fight in exile if they could.

Yes I think you hit the core of that problem: Since the little ones have no NM on their own, the only mechanic available for determining when they've had enough is the capitals. But introducing NM for minors is probably a very major change, if it's even possible.

[mdsmall]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

ORIGINAL: mdsmall
I wonder how this is possible, given that minors are supposed to be controlled by a designated Major

If you go into the editor and click on Campaign -> Country Data, if you select Serbia the "Attachable Minors?" checkbox is unchecked. Serbia is the ONLY major country that has this box unchecked. I assume it's intentional and not a mistake because of the 'Montenegro or Serbia HQ?' decision.

From my testing entrenchment doesn't improve defense of Cetinje nearly as much as 1. Unit Strength and 2. Readiness from being attached to a HQ. I think from a gamebalance perspective it would be an improvement to check that box and give Serbia the ability to command minor units from the start.

What exactly is the logic behind Serbia not being able to command minor nations' units? Is it because Albanians and Serbians aren't friendly?

I thought I would return to this good question raised by Chernobyl. Why is the "attachable minors" box unchecked for Serbia? It can't be to preclude Serbian HQs from commanding the Albanian unit, since Albania is not a minor of Serbia. The best explanation is that it was done to force the Serbian player to chose between making Jankovic either a Serbian or Montenegrin HQ when that DE fires. But given the close collaboration between the Montenegrin and Serbian militaries (cited by others in this thread) being forced to make that choice seems somewhat arbitrary and it penalizes the Montenegrin forces exactly when they most need the support of a HQ - ie. in the first couple of turns of the game.

It would seem that either a) bringing forward the timing of this DE to the first turn or b) dropping it altogether and checking the "attachable minors" box for Serbia would enable the Serbs to put Cetinje under the command of a HQ from the start of the game. From Chernobyl's game testing, that would add a lot to the defendability of Cetinje. I hope this might be considered along with the idea of creating a alternate capital in Pec.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

It would seem that either a) bringing forward the timing of this DE to the first turn or b) dropping it altogether and checking the "attachable minors" box for Serbia would enable the Serbs to put Cetinje under the command of a HQ from the start of the game. From Chernobyl's game testing, that would add a lot to the decision the defendability of Cetinje. I hope this might be considered along with the idea of creating a alternate capital in Pec.

I don't mind either a) or b), but I am not convinced Pec should be an alternate capital as I think the population was mainly Albanian. This is despite the town's religious significance for the Serbs.

[Tendraline]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

It would seem that either a) bringing forward the timing of this DE to the first turn or b) dropping it altogether and checking the "attachable minors" box for Serbia would enable the Serbs to put Cetinje under the command of a HQ from the start of the game. From Chernobyl's game testing, that would add a lot to the decision the defendability of Cetinje. I hope this might be considered along with the idea of creating a alternate capital in Pec.

I don't mind either a) or b), but I am not convinced Pec should be an alternate capital as I think the population was mainly Albanian. This is despite the town's religious significance for the Serbs.

Fair enough, but the game does not accurately simulate the Albanian situation anyways. Pristina, another majority-Albanian city, spawns Serbian partisans, and the pro-Entente leader of the country, Essad Pasha, did not hold full control of Albania and needed Serbian support to keep his regime afloat.

To be honest, I think that having an alternate capital in Pec is a rather realistic simulation, as firstly there are Montenegrin (I mean Serbian)-majority cities in the vicinity and secondly they're going to continue the war any way they know how. Or so we wish.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

This is such a great tread...much food for thought. The Balkans are truly complex.

I was revisiting the geography of the area and reading more about this AO, particularly Montenegro in the early phases of the war. One thing that leapt out was both the vulnerability and inaccessibility of Cetinje. Considering Chernobyl's Gambit, I still think Cetinje should be a harder nut to crack. Not impossible if the Central Powers decided on this stratagem...but a little harder or timely to accomplish.

I relooked at the hex in Montenegrin territory just north of Cetinje. If the CP occupies this hex on the first turn, then the investment of Cetinje begins. There is almost no chance of the Entente dislodging an Austro-Hungarian corp out of there...and if the Montenegrin Gambit is used...almost a certainty that it will fall within 2 to 3 turns.

Highlighted is the hex north of Cetinje. (1st of two images)

[OldCrowBalthazor]

So, by placing the Montenegrin detachment from Pec onto the hex just north of Cetinje (entrenched), will make it harder for the Central Powers to take Cetinje in an alpha strike. I have done a few short tests using Chernobyl's Montenegrin Gambit deployment...and while it won't necessarily prevent Cetinje to be taken in 1914 before the winter sets in...it does gain the Entente some more time. (At least till Albania can come in anyway).

Another affect this proposed new initial set-up is that it gives the Entente (Serbo-Montenegrin) side a little more wiggle room the next few turns down the line..like moving the Sanjak corp into Cetinje, or other Serb forces into Montenegrin territory. On top of that, with the current HQ decision as it is...the Entente player can make the choice of whether to augment the Montenegrins with the 'Monte' HQ or the second Serb HQ for the Pec-Cetinje area if he decides to integrate Serbs into the defence of Montenegro.

In addition...the Western Entente may be able to intervene if the emergency warrants it..through Cetinje port if not at the very least, Tirana, Albania if time has been gained. This would simulate the all ready hair raising quality of the Montenegrin Gambit for both sides. )

Note: I think the detachment in Cetinje should perhaps be 10 strength..but I am working with the original setup other than shifting the Pec detachment and having both entrenched.

Adding the devs proposed fix of entrenching the Cetinje detachment on the first turn...and coupling that and this new deployment proposal with a possible convoy change for Serbia upon the fall of Montenegro and/or some of the other ideas presented on this interesting thread, may achieve the balance that we are seeking to counter the Montenegrin Gambit, but not making it impossible to do so.

I personally like Gambits that have both a high risk but high reward quotient. The way things stand atm...the use of this gambit highly favors the Central Powers with modest risk and war winning rewards.

Cheers

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I don't mind either a) or b), but I am not convinced Pec should be an alternate capital as I think the population was mainly Albanian. This is despite the town's religious significance for the Serbs.

I understand that, but unless it would have likely triggered a rebellion I would imagine the presence of Montenegrin soldiers would have enabled the government to set up there?

[Bavre]

I am very much in favor of OldCrows suggestion above. Its simple and would turn the gambit into a genuine gamble instead of the save investment with colossal interest it currently is.

Slightly off topic:
When I started playing the game it actually kind of appeared to me as if rushes/gambits are purposefully encouraged by unit placement. A lot of the most important and neuralgic points only have weak if not token units assigned to them (Sofia, Belgrade, Centije, Liege, Maastricht ...). The Ludendorff campaign is even more extreme: it is almost trivial to snipe half the Entente Arty on turn 1!

[shri]

Belgrade fell very easily and fast Historically.
Problem was the Potiorek commander was totally insane and insisted on marching in over the mountains and hills deeper with Winter approaching, it led to a series of savage battles and a lot of men died due to diseases, typhus (mainly Serbs), starvation, etc.
TLDR- With a better commander, the Austrians would have had an upper hand historically also.

Same is the case on the Entente side, with no decent entente player suiciding his armies into Saarbrucken or Koenigsberg.

Game turns are about 1 week to 2 weeks, considering that Liege has to fall soon.

[shri]

BILL and HUBERT proposed an alternative convoy into either Albania or Greece, preferably Greece which is IMHO the best solution for the Monte Gambit. The main loss is MPPs per turn, the Greek convoys from France albeit with somewhat reduced efficiency (to show supply problems of Balkans) would be adequate compensation for loss of Monte.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: shri

BILL and HUBERT proposed an alternative convoy into either Albania or Greece, preferably Greece which is IMHO the best solution for the Monte Gambit. The main loss is MPPs per turn, the Greek convoys from France albeit with somewhat reduced efficiency (to show supply problems of Balkans) would be adequate compensation for loss of Monte.

I like the convoy idea through Greece after after Montenegro falls...which can be accomplished by the CP in time even without Chernobyl's full blown gambit with Germans. Cetinje can be blockaded and reduced by more conventional means, although in a slower manner.

I threw out the proposal of an alternative first turn deployment of Montenegro's starting as an addition to the convoy idea...to give a slightly better option for the Entente the first 2 to 4 turns. Also, the idea of a second capital for Montenegro at Pec if Cetinje falls has been floated...and I like that idea too.

[Chernobyl]

If you start the detachment north of Cetinje then the Centrals can't begin the siege/reduction of Cetinje immediately. Not sure if this siege was intended or not but it gradually reduces Serbian income just by sticking two units adjacent to Cetinje, which is what I generally do.

I don't think I would do an assault on Montenegro if it's a 50% chance of failure. I'd only do it if there was a very high chance of success. If starting the siege isn't possible either, I'd probably send all my corps somewhere else on turn 1 and just hold the Dalmatian coast with a railed-in detachment.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I don't think I would do an assault on Montenegro if it's a 50% chance of failure. I'd only do it if there was a very high chance of success. If starting the siege isn't possible either, I'd probably send all my corps somewhere else on turn 1 and just hold the Dalmatian coast with a railed-in detachment.

Whatever is decided, I think attacking Cetinje early on has to be a big gamble. A German HQ (rated 6 or 7) and 4 Infantry Corps (or 3 Infantry and 1 Cavalry) should probably give you around a 50% chance of success, whereas a smaller force should have more chance of failing than succeeding.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

If you start the detachment north of Cetinje then the Centrals can't begin the siege/reduction of Cetinje immediately. Not sure if this siege was intended or not but it gradually reduces Serbian income just by sticking two units adjacent to Cetinje, which is what I generally do.

I don't think I would do an assault on Montenegro if it's a 50% chance of failure. I'd only do it if there was a very high chance of success. If starting the siege isn't possible either, I'd probably send all my corps somewhere else on turn 1 and just hold the Dalmatian coast with a railed-in detachment.

Yeah...I always try to push two CP land units against CetinJe on the first turn. And if I can get away with it, a mine directly south of the port and a submarine tucked next to the coast and port. This brings down the convoy if nothing else.

Thats why I proposed an easy repositioning of the Montenegrin detachment from Pec to that hex right north of Cetinje...just to give Montenegro some wiggle room Not much...but something haha.

Anyways..Cetinje held until 1916....but not generally in an MP.

[Chernobyl]

Does the mine actually do anything? I don't believe it does.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Does the mine actually do anything? I don't believe it does.

It does because it counts as a ship. So, if you have a mine and a ship (or surfaced sub) next to an enemy port..it counts as two ships that will reduce the port 1 point per turn. This dirty little secret I discovered in the Baltic in an earlier match with Tanaka. Both of us where pulling this off on Riga and the Finnish ports.

So I tried my own version of a 'Montenegrin Gambit' with just 1 German corp and the Austro-Hungarians in combination with this mine/ship blockade of Cetije. It works like a charm...takes longer...but it cripples Serbia real quick.

[Chernobyl]

And I take it reducing the strength of the port reduces the strength of the city?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

And I take it reducing the strength of the port reduces the strength of the city?

Two CP ground units next to Cetinje will reduce the town by 1 point per turn, and the mine and ship will reduce the port by 1 point per turn. It's the devil for the Entente to stop...especially after the Austro-Hungarian's get their second submarine.

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
and the mine and ship will reduce the port by 1 point per turn

Okay but I actually don't know: what does this accomplish? If you take their port down to level 0 what exactly does that do? Does the city also reduce in strength?