Ignoring Serbia

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ignoring Serbia

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> Ignoring Serbia

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ignoring Serbia - 12/19/2007 2:35:47 AM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

In my last two matches the CP players used completely opposite approaches to deal with Serbia. (I was the ET) One totally neglected it, put not a single corps near it. The Serbs captured Sarajewo, Ragusa and later in the war even Pecs. But they ran out of offensive powers soon. Eventually Serbia was conquered, but it lasted extremely long.

The second player massed AH troops vs Serbia and it surrendered a lot faster. But this allowed the Russians to do a deep thrust into Galicia and they almost captured Budapest.

Of course there is the third option of putting just as many troops to the border to contain Serbia (if it does attack at all). But I think the first idea proved to be quite successful. At least as long as the ET does not move any French or British HQ's to the Balkans. Then the Serbs might walk right up to Vienna unoppossed... So you better sacrifice the AH fleet.

What are your favourite strategies?

Post #: 1

RE: Ignoring Serbia - 12/19/2007 2:47:02 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

IMO you can put enough troops against Serbia to capture it by the end of 1914 and also hold het Galician forts...or at least make their capture a very expensive operation for Russia.

Leaving Serbia alone is dangerous....the Brits can amphibious into Scutari with 2-3 corps and a leader in 1914 once they realise what you've done, and then you'll never conquer it!

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 2

RE: Ignoring Serbia - 12/19/2007 2:59:37 AM

Lascar

Posts: 489
Joined: 10/7/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boogada

In my last two matches the CP players used completely opposite approaches to deal with Serbia. (I was the ET) One totally neglected it, put not a single corps near it. The Serbs captured Sarajewo, Ragusa and later in the war even Pecs. But they ran out of offensive powers soon. Eventually Serbia was conquered, but it lasted extremely long.

The second player massed AH troops vs Serbia and it surrendered a lot faster. But this allowed the Russians to do a deep thrust into Galicia and they almost captured Budapest.

Of course there is the third option of putting just as many troops to the border to contain Serbia (if it does attack at all). But I think the first idea proved to be quite successful. At least as long as the ET does not move any French or British HQ's to the Balkans. Then the Serbs might walk right up to Vienna unoppossed... So you better sacrifice the AH fleet.

What are your favourite strategies?

I don't see how the CP can ignore Serbia early in the war if they want to have early access to the resources and food of the Ottoman Empire. It is very difficult to actually force Serbia to surrender but at the very least the CP needs to establish a line of communications through Serbia to Bulgaria to allow for the flow of Ottoman resources to Germany. Also, if CP is going for a Russia first strategy this creates an opportunity for the surplus British and French corps to be sent to Serbia and go on the offensive there against Austro-Hungary and Bulgaria. This would be a big set back for the CP.

In the above example of the first player who ignored Serbia, did he send large British/French forces and HQs to reinforce the Serbian offensive?

In the case of second player, although you were able to advance deep in Galicia allowing the CP to make a strong advance from the north cutting off and destroying most of the Russian corps in Galicia. Only a vigorous offensive in the west stole the momentum from the CP advance deeper into Russia otherwise Russia would have been threatened with early collapse.

< Message edited by Lascar -- 12/19/2007 3:01:28 AM >

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 3

RE: Ignoring Serbia - 12/19/2007 11:02:23 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Well being the ignorant one towards the Serbs I will elaborate the background. Mind you my strategy and reasoning was based on knowledge with 1.1 and I wasn't aware that with 1.2 you now need to take each Serbian controlled city to conquer them.

My strategy was a blitz like east first based on ending offensive operations in Russia after the first two turns which necessitated heavy AH commitment of forces against the Ukraine and to drive for Brest-Litovsk. Russia would then slowly starve to death and I would be able to dig in.

After that I would switch to the offensive in the Balkans and deal with Serbia i.e. begin to rail stragglers and exhausted units towards Serbia together with reinforcements at the end of turn two and begin offensive operations during the winter disregarding losses to get out Serbia fast.

I assumed during turn one that the Brits wouldn't be able to go to Serbia but would setup for a France first. On turn two the AH fleet sortied into the eastern med denying the Entente control and therefore shipment of troops through that area. With 2 DN, 1 PD, 1 CA the Entente would either have to remove them or have 3 * that amount of ship points to get control. Figuring the Entente would do something to that in turn three I reacted by sending my SUBS for transports in the western med and most importantly the HSF went for the north Atlantic to deny RN control and therefore transportation through that sea area. Sure the French could perhaps sent troops but then I also needed fewer troops against France.

My reasoning was therefore that provided my plan with getting offensive forces in position for a winter offensive against the Serbs would hold then I would be able to swarm and overwhelm the Entente reinforcements.

Had I known I would have to take Scutari to get the Serbs out I am not so sure I would have chosen this strategy. But then again no guts no glory.

Oh and regarding the OE resources. The important thing to me is not when i get those resources but that I get them.

(in reply to Lascar)

Post #: 4

RE: Ignoring Serbia - 12/19/2007 12:09:16 PM

boogada

Posts: 353
Joined: 8/17/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

I think the point here is that Serbia, if not getting help by the Brits and French, can only commit a limited amount of damage and not advance very far. They sure might capture a few hexes, but given their overall numer of troops you don't have to fear this. Usually you would try to make up for the later access of the OE ressources by capturing more of Russia ASAP. To establish a line of communication with Bulgaria you only need to controll a few hexes in north-easten Serbia, and the CP should be able to get those, maybe even by using the Bulgarian forces only (given the fact that the Serbs are somewhere else capturing Bosnia).

Of course with a French or British HQ the situation will differ.

I did not ship any western troops to Serbia, never have, I might try this in another game. And even though I was on the offense completely unoppossed I felt like getting nowhere, in terms of space/territority as well strategically. Thats what got me thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lascar
In the case of second player, although you were able to advance deep in Galicia allowing the CP to make a strong advance from the north cutting off and destroying most of the Russian corps in Galicia. Only a vigorous offensive in the west stole the momentum from the CP advance deeper into Russia otherwise Russia would have been threatened with early collapse.

I admit that. The Russian offense was not that well going. And to be honest, I tried the same against Hjaco and he even beat me a lot worse. And it happened exactly like you prospect: An early collapse of Russia.

< Message edited by boogada -- 12/19/2007 12:10:38 PM >

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 5

RE: Ignoring Serbia - 12/19/2007 12:30:40 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Two comments Boogada:

1) I made the reasoning that even if the wallies send large troop contingents to the Balkans I would rather fight them there than in an Entente super anti-Schlieffen maneuver through Benelux. It's much like a balloon which you discovered. The more you advance the more troops you need to defend it and the less harm you make.

2) Your Russian offensive had one flaw. Against a Russia first strategy the forces in the Ukraine should have the main priority to defend the food resources. That can fit perfectly into an offensive strategy.

(in reply to boogada)

Post #: 6

RE: Ignoring Serbia - 12/20/2007 12:13:37 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

I reacted by sending my SUBS for transports in the western med and most importantly the HSF went for the north Atlantic to deny RN control and therefore transportation through that sea area. Sure the French could perhaps sent troops but then I also needed fewer troops against France.

I didn't think subs got past Gibralter? I know we discussed it a while back and they should be able to - has that been changed?

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 7

RE: Ignoring Serbia - 12/20/2007 12:39:12 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Nope - you could do that right from the beginning if I am not mistaken.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 8