RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2

RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I

Message

BillRunacre -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 10:36:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bavre 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. Yes, currently Montenegrin units are only set to have a 20% chance of fighting on from exile, so I would have to increase that % if this were the answer, but I'm not sure it is the answer due to the requirement that they be outside Montenegro when Montenegro surrenders in order for them to stay in the fight.

BillRunacre -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 10:42:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdsmall 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. Moving the capital to Nish isn't really feasible, as that is a Serbian alternative capital already. Regarding the Free Unit rule, the thing is that if units didn't have to be in exile when their country surrenders in order to have a chance to become Free Units, then the country wouldn't really be surrendering.

mdsmall -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 4:06:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillRunacre Regarding the Free Unit rule, the thing is that if units didn't have to be in exile when their country surrenders in order to have a chance to become Free Units, then the country wouldn't really be surrendering. I don't see the logic why Free Units have to be outside the borders of their home country. When a country surrenders, its government ceases to exercise control over its territory. In game terms, the minor ceases to collect any income, control of all empty hexes shifts to the enemy, supply is no longer provided from unoccupied resources to the side which controls the surrendering minor, and new minor units can no longer be built. Those are all very significant consequences of surrender. But I don't see why remaining units still occupying territory inside the surrendering country could not fight on, if they survived a die roll determination to see if they remained Free Units. This is especially true if the surrendering minor shares a land border with a Major belonging to the same side which could continue to supply them, e.g. in the case of Belgian units being supplied from France, Romanian units being supplied from Russia or Montenegrin units being supplied from Serbia. Take the following situation: Cetinje looks likely to fall on the next CP turn. If two Montenegrin units remain in Montenegro, then Montenegro would have only 12% chance of not surrendering the following turn and all subsequent turns. But if the Entente player moves the two units into Serbia, they have a 20% chance of surviving indefinitely as Free Units. The game logic would be to move the Montenegrin units outside their own country to increase their odds of survival and use Serbian units to defend any remaining strategically important hexes in Montenegro. This seems perverse. If the determination of whether a unit fights on as a Free Unit after surrender was not tied to that unit's location, then the Entente player would have an equal chance of keeping the Montenegrin units alive by having them defend Montenegro. Surely units should be at least as motivated to fight on as Free Units if they are still defending some of their own territory as they would if they had fled into exile.

BillRunacre -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 5:08:47 PM)
Hi Michael For units fighting on within their own country to have any feasibility, they would have to retain control of some resources in order to have supply, which means the resources would not surrender either. Or checks would have to be in place, e.g. (say) any resources without a friendly unit within one hex surrender? But what if in a larger country than Montenegro there are units (and therefore resources they occupy/are close to) near the enemy that don't surrender, but resources behind the front line with no friendly units in them, and the enemy may not yet be anywhere near them. Do these resources surrender or remain in friendly hands when the country surrenders? If they remain in friendly hands, who do they belong to as there are no units present to designate the controller? It could all get a bit complicated, and is much easier to handle either by using alternative capitals, or there is a setting in the Editor that means no country will surrender if its capitals are captured. It's a global setting so would apply to all countries, i.e. it can't be set for just Montenegro. You can always experiment with this. Essentially the concept behind Free Units is not to encourage the evacuation of a country, but to reflect that some/all of an army has the fighting spirit to continue the war from exile. Or to put it another way, soldiers will first and foremost want to defend their own soil, not evacuate it and let it be conquered if there is an option, and this should be encouraged as much as possible.

The Land -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 6:52:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdsmall I don't see the logic why Free Units have to be outside the borders of their home country. Imagine France surrendering in 1940. It would be weird if a bunch of French Army and Corps units in random places of Metropolitan France said "No, we are fighting on, despite our orders to surrender". It's the same mechanic at play in both situations. Maybe that illustrates the issue!

Bavre -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 7:10:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillRunacre Hi Michael For units fighting on within their own country to have any feasibility, they would have to retain control of some resources in order to have supply, which means the resources would not surrender either. Or checks would have to be in place, e.g. (say) any resources without a friendly unit within one hex surrender? But what if in a larger country than Montenegro there are units (and therefore resources they occupy/are close to) near the enemy that don't surrender, but resources behind the front line with no friendly units in them, and the enemy may not yet be anywhere near them. Do these resources surrender or remain in friendly hands when the country surrenders? If they remain in friendly hands, who do they belong to as there are no units present to designate the controller? It could all get a bit complicated, and is much easier to handle either by using alternative capitals, or there is a setting in the Editor that means no country will surrender if its capitals are captured. It's a global setting so would apply to all countries, i.e. it can't be set for just Montenegro. You can always experiment with this. Essentially the concept behind Free Units is not to encourage the evacuation of a country, but to reflect that some/all of an army has the fighting spirit to continue the war from exile. Or to put it another way, soldiers will first and foremost want to defend their own soil, not evacuate it and let it be conquered if there is an option, and this should be encouraged as much as possible. Hmm well, in light of that there seems to be no really smooth solution here. It's either weird semi-surrenders like Bill described or a big incentive to literally defend a minor with anything but its own units. quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl 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. Thanks for clearing that up! Has puzzled me for a while now. So this whole Jankovic decision + Serbia beeing unable to control other units was just a method to model balkan politics and animosities into the game.

mdsmall -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 7:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: The Land quote: ORIGINAL: mdsmall I don't see the logic why Free Units have to be outside the borders of their home country. Imagine France surrendering in 1940. It would be weird if a bunch of French Army and Corps units in random places of Metropolitan France said "No, we are fighting on, despite our orders to surrender". It's the same mechanic at play in both situations. Maybe that illustrates the issue! The idea in principle of having Free Units fight on inside their own country does not seem weird to me at all. If an already formed unit is not defeated, has a supply source it controls and has the morale to keep fighting after its government surrenders, why shouldn't it? No one thinks it is weird to have Free Units re-invade their country in order to try to liberate it, as the Free French did in 1944 as part of the invading Allies. In the specific and important case of France in 1940, the critical difference is that a successor French government to the Third Republic was established in Vichy. French Army and Navy units were expected to remain loyal to the new regime in Vichy and many did. In game terms, you can avoid having French units fighting on in Metropolitan France after the Germans accept Marshall Petain's surrender by deeming that the Vichy government disbands them as part of the terms of recognizing Vichy France's control of its new borders. (It might make for a very interesting "what if" if those units could join the Free French - but that's a thought to pursue in another Forum!).

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 7:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bavre quote: ORIGINAL: Chernobyl 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. Thanks for clearing that up! Has puzzled me for a while now. So this whole Jankovic decision + Serbia beeing unable to control other units was just a method to model balkan politics and animosities into the game. That's how I'm seeing this, Bavre. I like this how it stands. It's part of the nuances that are embedded in the game.

mdsmall -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 7:48:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre Essentially the concept behind Free Units is not to encourage the evacuation of a country, but to reflect that some/all of an army has the fighting spirit to continue the war from exile. Or to put it another way, soldiers will first and foremost want to defend their own soil, not evacuate it and let it be conquered if there is an option, and this should be encouraged as much as possible. Bill - I completely agree with your point quoted above. My point though is that the current rules create an incentive for players to not let soldiers of minors defend their own soil, and to move them instead into exile, in order to avoid having them disappear when their government surrenders. If a minor's last capital is about to be captured, this is a very rational strategy as their chance of surviving one random check as Free Units will be much higher than their chances of surviving a surrender check every turn inside their own country when its last capital has fallen. On your query about supply, I don't think this creates any complications. When a country surrenders, all of its resource hexes shift control to the conquering side unless they are physically occupied by the opposing player. This need not change if the units doing the occupying are Free Units fighting on after their government has surrendered, or units belonging to an enemy Major. Imagine the following situation in Romania (to pick a larger minor than Montenegro). The Central Powers have captured Bucharest a few turns ago and have just captured Romania's Alternate Capital in Jassy. The Entente have a Russian corps occupying Galati and there is a remaining Romanian detachment entrenched in the port town of Constanta. In the existing rules, the Russian corps would remain in Galati and in control of that resource, while the Romanian detachment would disappear as soon as the Romanian government surrendered. If Jassy looked likely to fall, in the previous turn the Entente player would have been wise to evacuate the Romanian detachment to Sevastopol in the hope that it survived as a Free Unit. What I am arguing for is to enable that Romanian detachment to do a Free Unit check after Romania surrenders, and if it survives, it continues to occupy Constanta and gets its supply from that resource. This seems to me a reasonable outcome. If it obliges the Central Powers to divert some forces to conquer Constanta even after Romania has surrendered, so be it. It seems more reasonable than allowing the Central Powers to ignore a unit behind its advancing front line because it knows once Romania's last capital has fallen, that unit will almost certainly disappear immediately. The larger issue here - which connects most of the posts in this very long thread - is that the game consequences of a minor losing its capital are too immediate and too devastating, especially in a game where most other strategic decisions play out over many turns. In the Balkans at least, there should be options for the capital to move to an alternate location. And there should be the possibility of not all units disbanding immediately when a country surrenders.

Bavre -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 9:24:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdsmall The idea in principle of having Free Units fight on inside their own country does not seem weird to me at all. If an already formed unit is not defeated, has a supply source it controls and has the morale to keep fighting after its government surrenders, why shouldn't it? No one thinks it is weird to have Free Units re-invade their country in order to try to liberate it, as the Free French did in 1944 as part of the invading Allies. In the specific and important case of France in 1940, the critical difference is that a successor French government to the Third Republic was established in Vichy. French Army and Navy units were expected to remain loyal to the new regime in Vichy and many did. In game terms, you can avoid having French units fighting on in Metropolitan France after the Germans accept Marshall Petain's surrender by deeming that the Vichy government disbands them as part of the terms of recognizing Vichy France's control of its new borders. (It might make for a very interesting "what if" if those units could join the Free French - but that's a thought to pursue in another Forum!). I think in the context of WW1 and even 1940 France this was probably not all that common, at least for the big powers. De Gaulle was initially (technically speaking) just the leader of a handful of renegades that defied their own legitimate government. It wasn't until Hitlers cruelty and madness fully descended upon occupied France that he was proven right and the free french movement gained traction. Under normal (i.e. "non Hitler") circumstances the units of the surrendering side have a strong incentive to honor the decision of their government, since ignoring it gives the winning side a legit reason to not uphold their end of the peace deal. Apart from that I don't think such renegade soldiers are still considered regulars by the applicable war convention (Den Haag, Geneva, etc).

Tendraline -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/16/2021 10:23:58 PM)
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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/17/2021 10:59:45 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/18/2021 5:04:19 PM)
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? 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/18/2021 5:58:26 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/18/2021 8:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stockwellpete quote: 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/19/2021 4:35:43 AM)
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) [image]local://upfiles/72627/F2346C42B2EE4866A40E8EF42D7181AA.jpg[/image]

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/19/2021 4:36:41 AM)
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 [image]local://upfiles/72627/BE9F6D105EE74A81A6C97AE3DD8E3CEE.jpg[/image]

BillRunacre -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/19/2021 9:58:43 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/19/2021 5:54:58 PM)
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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 5:14:00 AM)
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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 5:16:46 AM)
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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 5:38:08 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 7:09:21 AM)
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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 7:23:11 AM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 7:25:36 AM)
quote: 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. [image]local://upfiles/72627/71EF03C4D577458C95D71EE0AC566714.jpg[/image]

Chernobyl -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 7:31:19 AM)
Does the mine actually do anything? I don't believe it does.

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 7:43:04 AM)
quote: 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.[sm=00000622.gif]

Chernobyl -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 4:47:44 PM)
And I take it reducing the strength of the port reduces the strength of the city?

OldCrowBalthazor -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 5:03:43 PM)
quote: 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 -> RE: Eliminating Montenegro on turn 2 (2/20/2021 9:33:20 PM)
quote: 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?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.476563