Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2

[shri]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

So this picture is the situation in Serbia on the Central Powers' second turn of the game. The Entente has had a chance to reinforce the Cetinje garrison to strength 10 (this is more effective on defense than entrenching). There is no corps which can make it to Cetinje so this is the best possible defense. All total there are six units which can attack Cetinje: two German corps, two Austrian corps, one Austrian cavalry and one German detachment.

And this is enough to give the Central Powers a 100%* success rate in destroying the Cetinje detachment. Montenegro surrenders. In order to accomplish this, the Germans had to rail down two corps and a detachment, the Austrians sent a cavalry and an extra infantry corps down there. The Austrians still have enough troops to attack Serbian positions defending the Pec-Nish line.

*I haven't failed in this attack in my playtesting (15+ tries) EXCEPT if I save the game after a bunch of really bad attack rolls. And even then it still usually works. I do pay to upgrade the Austrian general and if your initial attacks are poor you could in theory rail in a German HQ for one turn just to give a boost for a complete guarantee (you can actually rail the HQ in and assign it to units on the same turn)


Here are the pros and cons:

PROS:
-Centrals plunder like 30-40 MPP
-Immediate income increase from a nice capital city which eventually gives 20 base mpp
-Serbia loses its two largest sources of income immediately (French supply and Cetinje city)
-Serbia takes NM losses enough to knock them down one level of unit morale (sub 95%)
-Montenegro loses their detachment and probably the other detachment too (could possibly run away with the second detachment but that has downsides**)
-Montenegro never spawns its Sanjak corps and never spawns a HQ
-Nice supply route open for Austria to use to push into the Serbian mountains later
-Because this severely weakens Serbian strength so quickly (one turn kill that eliminates 3-4 units), you have the option to rail out the units you sent down sooner than other strategies which take longer to develop
-You gain quick access to a nifty port which helps you control the Adriatic better

CONS:
-Albania never joins. You miss out on about 12MPP per turn from annexing Albania and conquering Serbia is slightly more difficult due to not being able to use Albanian hexes to maneuver
-You have to sell tech to rail in 2 corps and a detachment.
-These units could be useful in France or in Russia immediately. You have to pay to rail them there and then pay to rail them out, also repair these units too.

** If you allow Cetinje to be surrounded completely from all three sides, attacks against the city get some sort of bonus and it falls more quickly. This is not due to supply but caused by some kind of surround defense factor which seems to eliminate the city hex bonus when there are three enemy units next to it.

What do you guys think? Is this crazy overpowered or do you think it's fine?

A crafty opponent on this forum did this to me. He does something more too, but i won't give away his cards right now. [:D]

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Stockwellpete,

It's the same deal as Trento and other towns sited on hills or mountains. You don't get the terrain bonus on a town resource hex.

Hmmm. OK then. 2 other thoughts occur to me. What if hex 183,99 to the north of Cetinje is changed from hills to mountains? The supply it gives as hills is 9, what would it be as mountains? And the Austrians are currently given a full strength Infantry Corps at Ragusa at the start of the game, which immediately attacks Cetinje in SP. Could that Infantry Corps be moved elsewhere and an Austrian Detachment be put at Ragusa?

I don't think you can stop an early assault on Cetinje if the CP player is determined to make it - and it is a legitimate alt-history gambit, but it needs to be a bit more difficult, I feel.

[Bavre]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Stockwellpete,

It's the same deal as Trento and other towns sited on hills or mountains. You don't get the terrain bonus on a town resource hex.

Hmmm. OK then. 2 other thoughts occur to me. What if hex 183,99 to the north of Cetinje is changed from hills to mountains? The supply it gives as hills is 9, what would it be as mountains? And the Austrians are currently given a full strength Infantry Corps at Ragusa at the start of the game, which immediately attacks Cetinje in SP. Could that Infantry Corps be moved elsewhere and an Austrian Detachment be put at Ragusa?

I don't think you can stop an early assault on Cetinje if the CP player is determined to make it - and it is a legitimate alt-history gambit, but it needs to be a bit more difficult, I feel.

It is a hex with rail, so supply would not change.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Bavre


It is a hex with rail, so supply would not change.

OK. There was definitely a railway line there between Ragusa and Cetinje . . .

https://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.co ... urope.html

So the only other variable are the units available to both Austria-Hungary and Montenegro at the start of the war. If the A-H's are going to start with an Infantry Corps in Ragusa then maybe Montenegro needs to start with an Infantry Corps in Cetinje? It would mean adjusting the current mobilisation of Montenegro. But if they ended up with the same size army as vanilla now, how much of an issue would it be?

This is useful on the situation in Montenegro in August 1914 . . .

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.n ... montenegro

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Well..it would help Montenegro better than it does now by placing a corp in there replacing the detachment. I'm not sure how many people playing the Central Powers are doing what a few of us have been doing for a long while (quietly I might add): selling some research chits on turn one to optimize our starting deployments and using the money from the sell to operate units where we want them.

The game as its designed for the early turns is set up historical in most cases...which is good. The simple solution would be the inability to sell chits on turn 1, but that could take away the creativity and flexibility that some of us gambit artists love.

I just tried a variation selling research chits with the Austro-Hungarians also, to shuffle what I need for Serbia in conjunction with Germany. Also, I tied that with making the decision to deploy the KuK 2nd Army to the Serbian Front for two reasons..they are on the map quicker...and I can always operate them up to exactly where I want them in Galicia...instead of having the 2nd army spawn some of its units to near the Russians and certain destruction.

All of this is designed to take out Serbia as fast as possible.

Alas...in some ways, describing some of the things that we do in multiplayer matches that can help us get an edge is also revealing stratagems that we employ...which I used to be hesitant to do.

'pour un, pour tous'

[Chernobyl]

The only way to completely prevent a turn 2 kill of Montenegro would be to make Pec an alternate capital. Not sure if that makes any sense though.

Still a slight improvement might be to make the Cetinje detachment start at 10/10 strength instead of 7/10. This would allow entrenchment and it might have more readiness on turn 2. I haven't tested if this makes much of a difference or not but it might.

[stockwellpete]

I don't have the game open at the moment to check, but when you "operate" units you can usually finish their movement by putting them in hexes a bit further away from the actual railway line. What if operational movement had to start and finish on a railway line instead, or at least you could not place a unit in a mountain/marsh/forest hex without a railway line in the same turn as the operational movement? This would slow deployment to places like Cetinje down a bit.

[BillRunacre]

How about if the Montenegrin Detachment starts entrenched, does that increase its survivability?

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

The game as its designed for the early turns is set up historical in most cases...which is good. The simple solution would be the inability to sell chits on turn 1, but that could take away the creativity and flexibility that some of us gambit artists love.

Yes, it crossed my mind but it has the drawback that you've mentioned. [:)]

Alternative strategies should be allowed, but if doing something ahistorical becomes the default then that is probably a sign of something needing correcting.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

How about if the Montenegrin Detachment starts entrenched, does that increase its survivability?

Yes. it would help..though not against Chernobyl's Gambit haha.

Seriously though..having the detachment 'entrenched' at Cetinje would help because as it currently stands, the Entente has 3 options:

1) The detachment entrenches but can't strengthen from the current 7 to 10 strength.

2) The detachment doesn't entrench but does strengthen to 10 from 7.

3) The Serb corp in Uskub can operate to Cetinje.

Having the detachment entrenched from the start could alleviate the Ententes decisions on these options in a modest way...which is probably more desirable than other more drastic changes.

[Dazo]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

How about if the Montenegrin Detachment starts entrenched, does that increase its survivability?

Hi Bill, definitely.

I agree with OldCrowBalthazor: at least it gives some kind of choice to Entente player there on turn 1.
Reinforcing doesn't cost much but MPPs are very scarce for Serbia.
Having Cetinje detachment at 10 and entrenched will at leats force CP player to consider the cost of a MTN gambit.
Would also give a good chance for MTN to survive long enough for Entente player to get Albania in, the 2nd HQ choice and that MTN corps which can then go defend Cetinje.

[Chernobyl]

Tried giving the detachment strength 10 to start and then entrenching. It still dies reliably to the same hitsquad when I rail Hindenberg over. Not a significant difference.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Tried giving the detachment strength 10 to start and then entrenching. It still dies reliably to the same hitsquad when I rail Hindenberg over. Not a significant difference.

It is a significant difference as long as your Gambit isn't used on Montenegro.

I know that if you do that stratagem, especially if you haul Hindenburg down there, that there are going to be weaknesses with Germany's position that the Entente can unflinchingly exploit, particularly in the East.

)-)))))@

[shri]

I guess if a good Entente player is present, he can exploit East Prussia in return for that Gambit, so let it be as it is. The Germans losing NM is more important than teeny tiny MonteNegro surviving. The game is all about German NM.

[Bavre]

ORIGINAL: shri

I guess if a good Entente player is present, he can exploit East Prussia in return for that Gambit, so let it be as it is. The Germans losing NM is more important than teeny tiny MonteNegro surviving. The game is all about German NM.

In principle, yes. However without a miracle the death of teeny tiny Montenegro will lead to a quick death of the entire balkan front. It takes a sizeable chunk out of Serbias tight budget and with albania not joining it also prevents any reinforcements until greece joins, which will probably be to late. If the german striketeam can even stay on the balkans for 2-3 more turns Serbia will die VERY quickly with all the snowballing that brings.
And if east prussia gets really dire the troops can be back up there in 1-2 turns. I think the point here really is, that for a relatively modest fee in MPP the CP can start an avalanche that all but ensures, that the Entente stands zero chance in this theater, Bulgaria will be in early, the inner line is complete and the Turks can be supported in time if needed etc.

[mdsmall]

I completely agree with Bavre's take in the post above. The Serbian front should be hard to defend for the Entente and if the Central Powers are willing to put resources into it, it should be possible for them to defeat Serbia by 1915. A great deal hangs on what happens on this small front (namely the entrance of Bulgaria and/or Romania, with collateral effects on Greece, the Ottoman Empire and even Italy) so getting the balance right is important.

But being able to force a minor to surrender on turn 2, without giving the other side a chance to defend effectively is gamey. Selling research chits on turn 1, by either side, to get around low to zero MPP allocations on turn 1 is also gamey. If that can be prohibited on turn 1, it would be an improvement in the game.

Increasing the strength and/or entrenchment of the Montenegrin unit that starts on Cetinje would help. But probably the most effective way to prevent Montenegro from being taken out in the first couple of turns of the game is to give it a second capital in Pec. Cetinje is a very strategic hex anyway in terms of the Serbian front and the Central Powers have lots of reasons to try to capture it early in the game. It also prevents the CP player from playing against the timing of the DE on the Albanian civil war by delaying capture of Cetinje until after September 10, 1914. If the CP can capture Cetinje on the first couple of turns of the game, they should be able to without triggering these wider political effects across the Balkans.

What this new gambit has in common with the much-discussed Bulgarian Gambit are the outsized effects in the game of capturing a minor capital before it goes to war or on the first turn of the war. If a second capital is given to Montenegro in Pec, then a second capital should be given to Bulgaria too and vice-versa. It makes the Balkans a fractious and crowded political space - but that's what made them "the Balkans" in the early the 20th century.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

What this new gambit has in common with the much-discussed Bulgarian Gambit are the outsized effects in the game of capturing a minor capital before it goes to war or on the first turn of the war. If a second capital is given to Montenegro in Pec, then a second capital should be given to Bulgaria too and vice-versa. It makes the Balkans a fractious and crowded political space - but that's what made them "the Balkans" in the early the 20th century.

The Balkans are already a fractious place as the image of a MP Fafnir and I had back in July 2020 illustrates [:D]

Still, Chernobyl's Montenegrin Gambit is quite devastating to the Entente. I agree with that. Maybe the solution is a second capital for Montenegro and an entrenched 10 str. detachment at Cetinje. Its all about delaying the CP until Albania joins the Entente so that possibly..and I mean only possibly, the Entente can get token help through Tirana.

I wouldn't tie giving a second capital to Montenegro with giving an extra to Bulgaria though. That's a different situation entirely. For Bulgaria, the simple solution is the swapping of the existing units on the map upon the declaration of war. Why not a second capital for Bulgaria? The main reason is that the Bulgarians surrendered when the road was layed open to Sofia in 1918 with the Salonika Front collapsed on them.

Another observation I can see with the consequences of a player pulling this gambit has to do with the AI. While the AI is workman like and competent on the whole...it really can't handle strategic surprises like this.
In a MP match..with FoW on of course, this gambit is also potentially devastating to the Entente, who might not realize what the CP player is doing down here for a few turns until its too late to react with a powerful counter punch from Poland into Germany proper.

Well, Chernobyl...another devilish stratagem from your wickedly creative mind has us all in a tussle...bravo! [8D]

[shri]

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

What this new gambit has in common with the much-discussed Bulgarian Gambit are the outsized effects in the game of capturing a minor capital before it goes to war or on the first turn of the war. If a second capital is given to Montenegro in Pec, then a second capital should be given to Bulgaria too and vice-versa. It makes the Balkans a fractious and crowded political space - but that's what made them "the Balkans" in the early the 20th century.

The Balkans are already a fractious place as the image of a MP Fafnir and I had back in July 2020 illustrates [:D]

Still, Chernobyl's Montenegrin Gambit is quite devastating to the Entente. I agree with that. Maybe the solution is a second capital for Montenegro and an entrenched 10 str. detachment at Cetinje. Its all about delaying the CP until Albania joins the Entente so that possibly..and I mean only possibly, the Entente can get token help through Tirana.

I wouldn't tie giving a second capital to Montenegro with giving an extra to Bulgaria though. That's a different situation entirely. For Bulgaria, the simple solution is the swapping of the existing units on the map upon the declaration of war. Why not a second capital for Bulgaria? The main reason is that the Bulgarians surrendered when the road was layed open to Sofia in 1918 with the Salonika Front collapsed on them.

Another observation I can see with the consequences of a player pulling this gambit has to do with the AI. While the AI is workman like and competent on the whole...it really can't handle strategic surprises like this.
In a MP match..with FoW on of course, this gambit is also potentially devastating to the Entente, who might not realize what the CP player is doing down here for a few turns until its too late to react with a powerful counter punch from Poland into Germany proper.

Well, Chernobyl...another devilish stratagem from your wickedly creative mind has us all in a tussle...bravo! [8D]

Bulgaria surrendered in 1918 as there were internal revolts, 3 years of war had ruined the country and the CP as a whole were close to breaking point. Do note that October 14, 1918 and November 11, 1918 are less than a month away. The Ludendorff offensive had failed by then and Germany was in full fledged retreat.

If MonteNegro which never even had a Corps size armed forces can get 2 detachment + 1 Corps, the Bulgaria the best Balkan army (maybe Serbia and Bulgaria are close) should definitely get one.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Bavre

In principle, yes. However without a miracle the death of teeny tiny Montenegro will lead to a quick death of the entire balkan front. It takes a sizeable chunk out of Serbias tight budget and with albania not joining it also prevents any reinforcements until greece joins, which will probably be to late. If the german striketeam can even stay on the balkans for 2-3 more turns Serbia will die VERY quickly with all the snowballing that brings.
And if east prussia gets really dire the troops can be back up there in 1-2 turns. I think the point here really is, that for a relatively modest fee in MPP the CP can start an avalanche that all but ensures, that the Entente stands zero chance in this theater, Bulgaria will be in early, the inner line is complete and the Turks can be supported in time if needed etc.

Yes, I think this is correct. In SP it also means that A-H (and then German subs from Pola) can begin raiding the Entente convoy lines in the Mediterranean in 1915. I now prohibit myself from taking Cetinje in SP before I have taken Nish.

[stockwellpete]

I have just run a test using my mod. I made the hex immediately to the north of Cetinje "high mountains" (there is a relatively high mountain there - Mount Lovcen) and I made the Montenegrin Detachment in Cetinje strength 10. It was not entrenched. I then operated 4xGerman Infantry Corps to hexes 183,99 182,99 181,98 and 180,98 with a German HQ unit, which put them in a row along the road leading to Cetinje. The A-H unit there (16 Corps) went up to the "high mountain" hex at 183,99.

The attack sequence was as follows . . .

German Infantry Corps number 1 - odds were 1-3 against, lost combat 0-3
German Infantry Corps number 2 - odds were 1-3 against, lost combat 2-3
German Infantry Corps number 3 - odds were 2-3 against, lost combat 3-4 so Montenegrin unit down to 5 strength points
German Infantry Corps number 4 - odds were 3-3 level, lost combat 3-4
A-H unit number 1 from high mtns - odds were 2-2 level, drew combat 2-2 so Montenegrin unit was destroyed

2nd German unit occupied Cetinje.

I'll do the test again in Hot Seat and entrench the Montenegrin unit in Cetinje. I am not sure but maybe those combat results were a bit favourable to the Central Powers and in another test where the casualties were a bit lower for both sides then the Montenegrin unit would have held on. Of course, it may have fallen on the next turn anyway, unless a fresh Serbian unit could have replaced it. But I think it would definitely have survived if it had been entrenched.

So increasing the strength of the Montenegrin Detachment to 10 and entrenching it (plus possibly adding the high mountain hex to the north of Cetinje) could do the trick in terms of this particular gambit. Could the CP player afford to operate 5 units there to take Cetinje? What consequences might it have for the CP elsewhere?