Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/14/2021 10:23:21 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
Well, Historically speaking, Belgium fielding 3 detachments + 2 corps and a HQ represents over 150k troops. Way too much.
Serbia starts with 5 corps with 2 detachments, thats over 200k troops in frontline with 50k more in MonteNegro and will get another 20k or so due to Albania and Americans. Germany starts with lesser Cavalry and Infantry than Historical.

But i guess that's due to gameplay not due to strict history.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 61
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/14/2021 10:26:40 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete


quote:

ORIGINAL: shri

Someone already suggested- Why not spawn the MonteNegro HQ and Corps at the end of 1st Entente turn via Decision? This will make the front tougher but deprive choice of Serbia to have a 2nd HQ, which is a fair trade-off.
This coupled with the Monte unit starting entrenched or at full strength should be enough.

The CP player is spending a lot of MPP railing in corps and a HQ and that gambit should have some chance of success.


Yes, I have suggested the 2nd Serbian HQ unit arrives a week earlier too. I am not actually sure what this Montenegrin HQ and Infantry Corps represent though. Montenegro fielded 40-50,000 troops in WW1, so 2x Detachments are probably enough to represent them. They were tough guerilla fighters first and foremost. I think Jankovic was a Serbian commander and Montenegrin troops fought under Serbian command in WW1, but I would need to check that. I am all for DE's in the game, but I think this Serbian one is not the best, by any means.


I agree with your suggestion.

The problem is Historically, Potiorik was a disastrous commander as bad as Joffre but without the resources of France. Also, Austria messed up the 2nd army between Galicia and Serbia. In game, all MP players use the 2nd army against Servia to eliminate it fast and use a German corps to save the left flank of Austria to compensate. This allows gambits like the one proposed by Chernobyl who is among the most daring members here, if i remember right, he was the one who made the post on Schlieffen.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 62
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/14/2021 1:01:55 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shri

Well, Historically speaking, Belgium fielding 3 detachments + 2 corps and a HQ represents over 150k troops. Way too much.
Serbia starts with 5 corps with 2 detachments, thats over 200k troops in frontline with 50k more in MonteNegro and will get another 20k or so due to Albania and Americans. Germany starts with lesser Cavalry and Infantry than Historical.

But i guess that's due to gameplay not due to strict history.


Belgium's army was over 200,000 strong by the time the war started so the representation in the game is OK . . .

120,500 regular soldiers
65,000 reservists assigned to fortress units
46,000 militia of the Garde Civique
18,000 new volunteers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Army_order_of_battle_(1914)
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/belgium

I think the Serbian army was a similar size to Belgium when the war started, around a quarter of a million, but it was short of basic equipment. But they did call up a lot of reservists quite quickly so maybe that is what the additional Infantry Corps represent? No mention of this mysterious Sanjak Corps though.

"The First Army (three divisions) was situated in the Morava Valley; the Second (four divisions) in Central Serbia; the Third (2.5 divisions) along the Drina and Sava rivers; the Užice Army (one division) on the Upper Drina; and a Braničevo detachment was distributed along the Danube banks (1.5 divisions)."

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/serbia?slideshow=1&media=File%3AAlexander-Pasic-Serbia+IMG.jpg

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 2/14/2021 1:24:19 PM >

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 63
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/14/2021 9:16:05 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
This is a good thread with lots of worthwhile suggestions.

A question in my mind is this:

If there is (say) a 75% chance that the CP can go all out against Montenegro and knock it out in 2 turns, and they attempt this but fail, is the CP player going to then throw in the towel and consider the game lost?

If so then I'm not sure that's a good situation either?





_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 64
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/14/2021 9:28:29 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
In terms of Montenegro being able to deploy a Corps, the book Serbia’s Great War 1914-1918 by Andrej Mitrovic talks a number of times about the operations during the war of the Montenegrin Sandzak Army.

Given that Serbia's armed forces were organised into Armies that were roughly equivalent to Corps, and the small size of the Montenegrin Army, I opted to deploy the Sandzak Army in the same manner.

Online sources such as wikipedia don't mention such a body, and we could of course choose instead to go with what wikipedia says by only giving Montenegro Detachments.

But given the scale of the game it is probably better to give them a more concentrated unit, and the discussion surrounding this gambit suggests that otherwise the fall of Montenegro would remain a rather easy task for the CP, whether it happened in turn 2 or slightly later.

< Message edited by BillRunacre -- 2/14/2021 9:29:25 PM >


_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 65
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 12:00:59 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 745
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

This is a good thread with lots of worthwhile suggestions.

A question in my mind is this:

If there is (say) a 75% chance that the CP can go all out against Montenegro and knock it out in 2 turns, and they attempt this but fail, is the CP player going to then throw in the towel and consider the game lost?

If so then I'm not sure that's a good situation either?






The CP can recover if they flounder against Montenegro, even if it takes a few extra turns to take Cetinje. If the Entente loses Montenegro too early...Serbia goes quick too, and this is almost always a fatal blow to the Entente.

The only times I have been defeated in a MP as the Entente...it was because these two small but valiant states were liquidated rapidly by the two opponents that accomplished this...in early 1915.
I am a bit biased towards making Montenegro's position a little stronger on the first turn..but I also am favorably biased at using gambits, such as the ones Chernobyl illustrates all too well.

Long live Montenegro!...in your face KuK clowns haha




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 2/15/2021 5:17:53 AM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 66
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 4:28:20 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
Please don't use WIKI as a source. Same wiki gives Germany 3.8 million in 1914 August and Russia 5 million. At an average of 45k per corps, you will get 85 corps for Germany and 110 for Russia. Taking into consideration cavalry, HQ, navy, air force, forts and detachments etc., you still get 70 and 85 respectively. Which will break the game totally.
In game start, barring Cavalry Germany gets 26 corps and a further 11 including reinforcements and production (total frontline corps of about 37 or so by end of 1914). Which means slightly about half. But these include the mid/late 1914 mobilisations (not just pre-war).

In general for 10 men mobilised only 3 or so were actually sent to the front, the remaining were in rear areas, military police, cooks, cleaners etc. Since our game considers only frontline troops, those numbers need to be factored by 3.
So, Belgium should have a frontline strength going strictly by numbers thrown of only 85k troops or less than 2 corps or just 1 corps and since a detachment is roughly 15k, 3 detachments.
Same with Serbia.

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 67
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 4:37:31 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: shri

Well, Historically speaking, Belgium fielding 3 detachments + 2 corps and a HQ represents over 150k troops. Way too much.
Serbia starts with 5 corps with 2 detachments, thats over 200k troops in frontline with 50k more in MonteNegro and will get another 20k or so due to Albania and Americans. Germany starts with lesser Cavalry and Infantry than Historical.

But i guess that's due to gameplay not due to strict history.


Belgium's army was over 200,000 strong by the time the war started so the representation in the game is OK . . .

120,500 regular soldiers
65,000 reservists assigned to fortress units
46,000 militia of the Garde Civique
18,000 new volunteers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Army_order_of_battle_(1914)
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/belgium

I think the Serbian army was a similar size to Belgium when the war started, around a quarter of a million, but it was short of basic equipment. But they did call up a lot of reservists quite quickly so maybe that is what the additional Infantry Corps represent? No mention of this mysterious Sanjak Corps though.

"The First Army (three divisions) was situated in the Morava Valley; the Second (four divisions) in Central Serbia; the Third (2.5 divisions) along the Drina and Sava rivers; the Užice Army (one division) on the Upper Drina; and a Braničevo detachment was distributed along the Danube banks (1.5 divisions)."

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/serbia?slideshow=1&media=File%3AAlexander-Pasic-Serbia+IMG.jpg



Taking https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Forces-and-resources-of-the-combatant-nations-in-1914 as a source-

Belgium gets 7 divisions (2 corps and 1 HQ and 1 detachments)
UK gets 6 divisions or 3 corps
Serbia gets 11 divisions or 4 corps and 3 detachments (including monte)
France 72 i.e. 36 corps, removing for detachments, HQ, Cavalry, we get about 30 corps.
Russia 102 i.e. 43 Corps + fortress troops (huge amounts of forts i.e. garrisons), lots of cavalry, lots of detachments and HQs
Austria 48, so around 20 corps + detachments + HQ + cavalry
Germany 98, so excluding cavalry and detachments, 42 corps or so.


The same source gives 27 Landwehr brigades about 13 second line corps to Germany (Historically these were later made into corps to form the 9-12th Armies in the autumn of 1914, troops were detached from 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th armies to mix with these troops to strengthen the armies).
14 territorial army divisions, about 7 corps to UK in second line (after lots of training and equipment) and 69000 troops as fortress troops to Belgium which is about 3 detachments

TLDR - Germany by end of 1914 with 55 or so corps will be game over for everyone.

< Message edited by shri -- 2/15/2021 4:42:34 AM >

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 68
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 7:39:50 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

This is a good thread with lots of worthwhile suggestions.

A question in my mind is this:

If there is (say) a 75% chance that the CP can go all out against Montenegro and knock it out in 2 turns, and they attempt this but fail, is the CP player going to then throw in the towel and consider the game lost?

If so then I'm not sure that's a good situation either?




I wouldn't have thought so, Bill. There is only a very short window for the CP to try and take Cetinje before the South Serbian Infantry Corps can get there. The cost of operating a German HQ and 4x Infantry Corps there and back and fighting with them for one turn is around 300 MPP. So the attack failing will be about the same as losing a dreadnought. It won't be quite as bad as that as the Germans are very unlikely to lose a unit completely. Cetinje is a very big prize for the Central Powers so it should not be so easy to take.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 69
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 7:41:18 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shri

Please don't use WIKI as a source.



Why? The use of a Wikipedia article as a source is only as good as the person who wrote it and it should be read in conjunction with other sources.

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 70
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 7:55:51 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

In terms of Montenegro being able to deploy a Corps, the book Serbia’s Great War 1914-1918 by Andrej Mitrovic talks a number of times about the operations during the war of the Montenegrin Sandzak Army.

Given that Serbia's armed forces were organised into Armies that were roughly equivalent to Corps, and the small size of the Montenegrin Army, I opted to deploy the Sandzak Army in the same manner.

Online sources such as wikipedia don't mention such a body, and we could of course choose instead to go with what wikipedia says by only giving Montenegro Detachments.

But given the scale of the game it is probably better to give them a more concentrated unit, and the discussion surrounding this gambit suggests that otherwise the fall of Montenegro would remain a rather easy task for the CP, whether it happened in turn 2 or slightly later.


I have read in a number of places that the Montenegrin contingent was around 40-50,000 soldiers at the start of WW1. That seems fairly well established. What I am not clear about is who really was in charge of most of these soldiers. Montenegro was still an independent kingdom in August 1914 and the head of their armed forces was their king. But then this Jankovic chap (a Serbian) seemed to be put in charge of part of the Montenegrin forces (by the Serbian government) and he wanted them to move eastwards into Serbia. However, lots of the Montenegrins went in the other direction to Mount Lovcen to defend Cetinje. The political background to all this was the possible integration of Montenegro into Serbia it seems. I'll see what I can find out today.

I am much more inclined to trust Mitrovic than an anonymous Wikipedia article. I looked him up and he is/was a Serbian professor of history from Belgrade. His book, written in the 1980s is still available for Ł35. The WW1 online encyclopedia has this connecting the Sanjak Corps to the area of Novi Pazar . . .

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/sanjak_of_novi_pazar



< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 2/15/2021 7:56:07 AM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 71
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 10:36:35 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
An idea I've had would be, if Cetinje falls, to move the convoy to Serbia to another port, either in Albania or (more realistically) Greece.

It could be a weaker convoy, i.e. less MPPs, which would still make the gambit worth doing but reduce its overall effect on Serbia, so that it isn't quite as devastating.

Thoughts?


< Message edited by BillRunacre -- 2/15/2021 10:39:18 AM >


_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 72
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 11:04:30 AM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

An idea I've had would be, if Cetinje falls, to move the convoy to Serbia to another port, either in Albania or (more realistically) Greece.

It could be a weaker convoy, i.e. less MPPs, which would still make the gambit worth doing but reduce its overall effect on Serbia, so that it isn't quite as devastating.

Thoughts?



I think this is a good idea. But is it envisaged as part of wider changes discussed in this thread, or is it to be just a single change?

I am just reading up on this subject now. Can I just ask - did you ever consider treating Serbia and Montenegro as a single country for the purposes of this game, where military considerations are paramount? There were clear signals that Serbia and Montenegro were moving towards unification before war broke out - and they fought the war together as if they were already one nation. You could still have 2x Detachments marked up as Montenegrin units but they would now be able to take command from either Serbian HQ unit. The Sanjak Corps seems to have been a mixed Serbian/Montenegrin formation, as part of the former Sanjak of Novi Pazar was in Serbia and the other part in Montenegro. That could enter the game as a Serbian Infantry Corps.

< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 2/15/2021 4:53:34 PM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 73
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 4:01:09 PM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

An idea I've had would be, if Cetinje falls, to move the convoy to Serbia to another port, either in Albania or (more realistically) Greece.

It could be a weaker convoy, i.e. less MPPs, which would still make the gambit worth doing but reduce its overall effect on Serbia, so that it isn't quite as devastating.

Thoughts?



Bill - this is an interesting idea. You could have the Serbian convoy move to, say, Corfu. It could extend the naval combat in the Adriatic into the Ionian Sea by giving the CP subs a reason to venture a bit further from their home ports to try to raid the convoy or attack defending Entente ships. It could shift the dynamics a bit in late 1914 and early 1915 by giving the Central Powers more reasons to invade Albania and perhaps western Greece. But it won't change by much the impact on Serbia of having Montenegro surrender at the beginning of the game. Having had this happen to me on turn 2 when playing the Entente in my last PBEM game, I can say that the immediate and devastating impact on Serbia was having all the Montenegrin units immediately surrender and disappear from the game.

I think stockwellpete is onto something in his latest post when he asks who exactly commanded the Montenegrin forces. As an alternative to creating a alternate capital for Montenegro in Pec, what about having the Montenegrin army fight on under Serbian command when Cetinje falls and Montenegro surrenders? One could imagine the Montenegrin king moving to exile in Serbia and placing his forces directly under Serbian command. Serbia would lose the income from Montenegro and would suffer a significant NM hit when Montenegro surrenders. It could also lose some or all of the convoy income, depending on what you decide to do about the convoy. But it would not lose the Montenegrin corps and two detachments, which Serbia badly needs. This would be less cluttered than creating an alternate capital in a minor that only occupies five hexes.

If you made this change, Cetinje would still be a target worth capturing by the Central Powers early in the game. But it would reduce the incentive for throwing an extraordinary amount of force at Cetinje to either capture it or defend it in the first couple of turns (i.e. "the gambit"). Attention would shift back to other important targets in Serbia (like Belgrade). And the Serbian front would more likely be a somewhat longer slog for the Central Powers - which it was historically.



< Message edited by mdsmall -- 2/15/2021 4:14:00 PM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 74
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 5:04:43 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

I think stockwellpete is onto something in his latest post when he asks who exactly commanded the Montenegrin forces. As an alternative to creating a alternate capital for Montenegro in Pec, what about having the Montenegrin army fight on under Serbian command when Cetinje falls and Montenegro surrenders? One could imagine the Montenegrin king moving to exile in Serbia and placing his forces directly under Serbian command. Serbia would lose the income from Montenegro and would suffer a significant NM hit when Montenegro surrenders. It could also lose some or all of the convoy income, depending on what you decide to do about the convoy. But it would not lose the Montenegrin corps and two detachments, which Serbia badly needs. This would be less cluttered than creating an alternate capital in a minor that only occupies five hexes.



I think what was probably going on was that Montenegrin royal family (the king and the crown prince) were the the titular heads of the armed forces and army groups, but the actual day to day running of the Montenegrin army was done by Serbian generals. The Montenegrin royal family seems to have been strongly pro-Serbian and in favour of unification.

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 75
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 6:30:59 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 765
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

An idea I've had would be, if Cetinje falls, to move the convoy to Serbia to another port, either in Albania or (more realistically) Greece.

It could be a weaker convoy, i.e. less MPPs, which would still make the gambit worth doing but reduce its overall effect on Serbia, so that it isn't quite as devastating.

Thoughts?



I was just about to come here and say something similar.

The issue isn't that taking Montenegro isn't too easy (given the historical setup), it's that the consequences are too great.

I don't know how much Western Allied support reached Serbia in WW1 or how it got there. But it does strike me as unlikely that huge arms shipments made their way via the Montenegrin coast. There was literally one small port on the coastline (Bar / Antivari) which suffered the hindrance of being 30 miles from the Austro-Hungarian base at Cattaro.

Of course there were battles over access to this port and an attempted blockade. But it can't have been on its own the key to victory over Serbia. And surely there must have been additional routes via Albania and Greece.

So having alternative ports for a less powerful convoy would make sense. Preferably one still on the Adriatic so it's exposed to Austro-Hungarian raiding...


_____________________________


(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 76
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 6:41:17 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 765
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall
Having had this happen to me on turn 2 when playing the Entente in my last PBEM game, I can say that the immediate and devastating impact on Serbia was having all the Montenegrin units immediately surrender and disappear from the game.
...
I think stockwellpete is onto something in his latest post when he asks who exactly commanded the Montenegrin forces. As an alternative to creating a alternate capital for Montenegro in Pec, what about having the Montenegrin army fight on under Serbian command when Cetinje falls and Montenegro surrenders?


This also makes sense. Montenegro was virtually willing to merge with Serbia at this point. If Cetinje is captured but Serbia still lives and holds the border with Montenegro, then it would make sense for Serbia to acquire any unoccupied Montenegrin terrain and for the Monenegrin army to fight on as 'free' units.


_____________________________


(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 77
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 7:06:40 PM   
Bavre

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/5/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

The issue isn't that taking Montenegro isn't too easy (given the historical setup), it's that the consequences are too great.



That pretty much sums it up perfectly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

An idea I've had would be, if Cetinje falls, to move the convoy to Serbia to another port, either in Albania or (more realistically) Greece.

It could be a weaker convoy, i.e. less MPPs, which would still make the gambit worth doing but reduce its overall effect on Serbia, so that it isn't quite as devastating.

Thoughts?



I think this is a good solution, both in terms of realism and gameplay. Greece would probably be the better choice of the two. Albania won't join if Montenegro is rushed and CP will possibly leave it alone, because of the massive diplomatic fallout attacking it will cause.


(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 78
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 7:09:49 PM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

An idea I've had would be, if Cetinje falls, to move the convoy to Serbia to another port, either in Albania or (more realistically) Greece.

It could be a weaker convoy, i.e. less MPPs, which would still make the gambit worth doing but reduce its overall effect on Serbia, so that it isn't quite as devastating.

Thoughts?



I think this is a good idea. But is it envisaged as part of wider changes discussed in this thread, or is it to be just a single change?


The next patch will have the Detachment starting entrenched, anything else will have to wait for a subsequent patch, so we'll have more time to think about it.

The Free Unit idea might not really be the answer, because only units outside of Montenegro when it surrenders can continue the fight, those within the country would surrender too.

Relying on it as an Entente counter to the gambit could lead to the Entente player rapidly evacuating whatever Montenegrin units they can, and replacing them with Serbian, which isn't really what I'd like people doing if we can help it.

Instead I'd rather we make the gambit have a reasonable chance of success, but without its success being totally devastating to the Entente in the Balkans that it become a default strategy. If that means Montenegro gets a second capital then so be it.


quote:

I am just reading up on this subject now. Can I just ask - did you ever consider treating Serbia and Montenegro as a single country for the purposes of this game, where military considerations are paramount?


No I didn't, I wanted Montenegro to be represented as it would feel wrong to not have a country in the game that fought.

Secondly because they are often forgotten about and I didn't want to add to that. As far as I'm concerned, they may have been small, but they deserve to be in there.


_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to stockwellpete)
Post #: 79
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 7:25:08 PM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

No I didn't, I wanted Montenegro to be represented as it would feel wrong to not have a country in the game that fought. Secondly because they are often forgotten about and I didn't want to add to that. As far as I'm concerned, they may have been small, but they deserve to be in there.



To judge by the number of posts in this thread, there is no fear of them being forgotten in this game!

If Cetinje falls, could you have Montenegro's capital move to one of the Serbian capitals, say Nish or Uskub, reflecting Montenegro's king taking his government into exile? It seems perverse that the only free units that would fight on are ones that were outside of Montenegro when its capital falls.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 80
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 8:23:20 PM   
Bavre

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 12/5/2020
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

No I didn't, I wanted Montenegro to be represented as it would feel wrong to not have a country in the game that fought. Secondly because they are often forgotten about and I didn't want to add to that. As far as I'm concerned, they may have been small, but they deserve to be in there.



To judge by the number of posts in this thread, there is no fear of them being forgotten in this game!

If Cetinje falls, could you have Montenegro's capital move to one of the Serbian capitals, say Nish or Uskub, reflecting Montenegro's king taking his government into exile? It seems perverse that the only free units that would fight on are ones that were outside of Montenegro when its capital falls.


Actually when I tested this, even Montenegrin unit outside Montenegro did surrender. Not sure why, though. Other Minor's units (Belgium, Serbia) continue the fight abroad.

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 81
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 11:42:15 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 745
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre


quote:

I am just reading up on this subject now. Can I just ask - did you ever consider treating Serbia and Montenegro as a single country for the purposes of this game, where military considerations are paramount?


No I didn't, I wanted Montenegro to be represented as it would feel wrong to not have a country in the game that fought.

Secondly because they are often forgotten about and I didn't want to add to that. As far as I'm concerned, they may have been small, but they deserve to be in there.



I'm glad that Montenegro is depicted as having a separate national identity in this game...but I do understand that historically the Serbs took over a lot of operational control of Montenegro's military. Lets not forget the French, who also had a abiding interest in Montenegro...and were also present there in a modest way in 1914 on.

This is reflected in game I surmised by the fact that the 'Sanjak' corp and other Montenegrin units can be placed under a French HQ, which I have done many times when I had to intervene with Entente forces to try to save the situation in the Balkans.

Also, there is the curious case of the Sanjak of Novi Pazar...a subdivision of the Ottoman Empire that was partitioned almost equally by Montenegro and Serbia after the First Balkan War. I think this so called 'Sanjak' corp represents the disparate elements that resided there, including Slav muslims and other groups that joined Montenegro's cause.

Lastly...having the detachment at Cetinje entrenched at the beginning will be a help...and will give time to think about and test the other excellent solutions presented on this thread to gain game balance in a conservative and measured way.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 2/16/2021 2:09:00 AM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 82
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/15/2021 11:54:48 PM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

This is reflected in game I surmised by the fact that the 'Sanjak' corp and other Montenegrin units can be placed under a French HQ, which I have done many times when I had to intervene with Entente forces to try to save the situation in the Balkans.



Do you mean that a French HQ can provide its command bonus to Montenegrin units? If so, how, given that it is a Serbian minor?


(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 83
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/16/2021 12:10:26 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 745
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online
..I have done it many times. I noticed this since the game came out. I'll see if I can find an example later..I have a lot of screenshots or I can pull one of my tests a show it later on.

I sometimes got the French HQ Dubayl over to Tirana to support a French expeditionary force going in...and been able to attach the Sanjak corp to him.

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 2/16/2021 12:13:23 AM >

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 84
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/16/2021 2:05:08 AM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
I wonder how this is possible, given that minors are supposed to be controlled by a designated Major - which for Montenegro is Serbia. Could this somehow be a consequence of the DE which gives the Serbians the choice of putting General Jankovic in charge of the Serbian or the Montenegrin forces?

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 85
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/16/2021 2:05:35 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 745
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online
Here's the French HQ Dubail newly transported to Tirana with a French corp in tow... with 3 Montenegrin units under attachment, including the Sanjak corp which just deployed previously on Sept 5 1915. If I can get help to the Serbs and Montenegrins this way via Albania..I do this. Of course, it depends on how dire or not the situation is on the Western Front.

This image is from an old MP...I keep these as a reference. That French corp is intended for Cetinje..but if there's a problem deeper in Serbia, I would sent it that way, mindful to keep it under the French HQ if possible.

Edit: mdsmall, I don't know the answer to your previous post concerning Gen. Jankovik...but I'm curious about that also.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 2/16/2021 2:15:40 AM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 86
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/16/2021 4:41:08 AM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

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?

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 87
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/16/2021 5:26:48 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 745
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

quote:

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?


Hmmm...I've wondered about Serbia not being able to command minor nation units. Makes sense for Montenegro....but probably not desirable for let's say Greek or Rumanian units that arrive in theater.

As for the Albanians, yes that would be a problem for both the Serbs and Albanians to agree with anything....especially since there was a nascent Albanian irredendist movement that included a Greater Albania...which would include Kosovo.

Balkan politics could be the reason the box was left unchecked haha,

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 88
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/16/2021 6:34:02 AM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

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



So, if the above observations are correct, a Serbian HQ can not command Montenegrin units but a French HQ can? That seems like a glitch, not a feature.

The game already makes provision for tensions between Serbia and Albania by making Albania a minor of Russia, not Serbia. But Montenegro is a minor of Serbia. Seems to me that either Serbian general should be able to command the Montenegrin units from turn 1.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 89
RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 - 2/16/2021 8:07:05 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

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



So, if the above observations are correct, a Serbian HQ can not command Montenegrin units but a French HQ can? That seems like a glitch, not a feature.

The game already makes provision for tensions between Serbia and Albania by making Albania a minor of Russia, not Serbia. But Montenegro is a minor of Serbia. Seems to me that either Serbian general should be able to command the Montenegrin units from turn 1.



Monte, Albania, Romania all can become minors of Russia would be a better fix. This would allow Serbia to spend only on repairing its own units not the others.

If a Russian general came to the Balkans, all would obey him, but the Serbs wouldn't obey Romanians, Albanians wouldn't obey a Serb, Greeks wouldn't obey all of them and so on.. TLDR of the 1st and 2nd Balkan wars. The French formed the little entente post WW1 rather unsuccessfully, but theoretically it did work for sometime. I guess that's why they get attached to French HQs

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.254