Or maybe allow only infantry to pass. Terrain is especially difficult for heavy guns to move trough or planes to land.
Or maybe allow only infantry to pass. Terrain is especially difficult for heavy guns to move trough or planes to land.
You could still shove 20 plus infantry through, that’s enough.
Kim
First of all, A&A doesn’t make any allowance for terrain. Second of all, Switzerland would be no harder to get through than the Isonzo front. It has numerous passes. Hannibal got through, Suvorov got through, Napoleon got through. The Germans could have gotten through - with their guns.
First of all, A&A doesn’t make any allowance for terrain.
Yes they do, they have impassible terrain and they have control restrictions for moving through straits.
As for whether any nation could have, would have, or should have gone through Switzerland, the historical facts are that in two world wars they were right in the middle of it and NO ONE attacked them for whatever reason.
To overrun Switzerland every game with ease by whoever just doest seem right to me. The Sahara isn’t really impassible, just damn difficult to get thorough.
In Global 1940 Switzerland is impassible, where every other neutral can be attacked and get money from. Why didn’t they let you attack it there?
Kim
In Global 1940 Switzerland is impassible, where every other neutral can be attacked and get money from. Why didn’t they let you attack it there?
Uhh, Switzerland is passible. It raises 6 infrantry and doesn’t give you a single point of IPC.
Plus it makes all the rest of the true neutrals turn to the other side. This basically made it unpassable.
In Global 1940 Switzerland is impassible, where every other neutral can be attacked and get money from. Why didn’t they let you attack it there?
Uhh, Switzerland is passible. It raises 6 infrantry and doesn’t give you a single point of IPC.
Oops, confused with the other version, my bad.
Kim
@Quintus:
Plus it makes all the rest of the true neutrals turn to the other side. This basically made it unpassable.
Well, it effectively makes it unfavorable to attack it, and thus inadvisable. But it’s wrong to say it’s impassible. Unpassible is an okay work, like you used.
Kim; you’re fine. Understandable mistake. Just used wrong terminology. ;)
To model the almost impossible terrain and not make map changes, Switzerland defending land units should take either two hits each and or a fixed deployment based on a value of 4.
Nobody would attack them.
Switzerland should be 4.
My map also has the Arabian desert impassable, with “Southern Arabia” the British ally tt.
Also has the Pripet marsh - cutting Poland off from Ukraine.
People are not going to mark up their maps. Keep it at one, just make it for deployment purposes, a 4.
Also has the Pripet marsh - cutting Poland off from Ukraine.
The map does not have that, forget about Pripet marsh. The territories are too large anyway for such an insignificant area to be represented.
No weather
No terrain
No winddrift rules
Nothing.
I’d like to see you try marching a modern army through there.
If you readjust Switzerland to 1 IPC, 8 units then do the same for Norway.
The conversation has gone in a very different direction, but I still want to reply to something Quintus Fabius said on the first page about Austria helping out in Switzerland. If you don’t want to adjust Switzerland’s status, that is probably the best way to minimize the negative effects on the CP’s early game.
I tried something of the sort in the last game my group played before introducing the house rule in which Switzerland mobilizes six units instead of two.
Austria activated the territory on its first turn and Germany reenforced it with the Munich stack. This meant the allies were unable to contest Switzerland without risking the complete anihilation of either the French force from Burgundy or the Italian force from Piedmont. It certainly succeeded in protecting Germany’s southern territories.
However, for the move to work Austria had to send its forces from Trieste into Venice and send at least half of its forces in Vienna to Trieste to protect it against an Italian attack from Albania (which is usually activated by the French unless it was attacked by Austria, which isn’t possible when Trieste attacks Venice). In order to cover Austria’s southern front (Serbia and Albania) Austria had to divert troops from Budapest that would otherwise have gone to Romania and then Russia. While we’re only talking about 6 inf and 2 art this had a noticable impact on the eastern front.
In most of the games I’ve played so far, the CP’s had very few units left in the east by the time Russia fell. In the game I’m describing here those 8 units from Budapest that didn’t go into Russia were sorely missed. It took the CP’s too long to defeat Russia and that gave Britain the opportunity to send reenforcements through Karelia and Afghanistan. While the CP’s eventually captured Moscow (we don’t use RR rules, because it limits CP earning potential. Though perhaps the CP’s would’ve been better off if we had used it in this game) the British army outnumbered them and would have reactivated Russia and driven the CP’s back. Meanwhile the western front had started to crumble as well.
So while the Austrian help in Switzerland saved the western front from early collapse it compromized the eastern front. All that said, I only tried this strategy once. With a little tweaking a more determined and experienced player may be able to make it work.
And on a side note. I like your idea of movement restriction Kim! Because the larger mobilization protects the CP’s early on, but it really screws France later in the game when Austria is making decent money and can afford to send large armies into Burgundy. Allowing just one unit to pass at any one time feels a litte too restrictive though. I’d make it five or six. That way invading Switzerland is still a viable tactic, but its impact wouldn’t be quite so dramatic.
And on a side note. I like your idea of movement restriction Kim! Because the larger mobilization protects the CP’s early on, but it really screws France later in the game when Austria is making decent money and can afford to send large armies into Burgundy. Allowing just one unit to pass at any one time feels a litte too restrictive though. I’d make it five or six. That way invading Switzerland is still a viable tactic, but its impact wouldn’t be quite so dramatic.
There have been several ideas that all do what I think needs to happen, and that is making Switzerland less likely to be overrun easier then Holland. Whatever is done, the rule needs to be pretty simple. For sure, the single IPC is not any issue here, it is only the logistics and strategic advantage taking the position in the game may give one side or the other.
Historically there where reasons for armies not attacking through Switzerland, so so sort of representation needs to acount for this, otherwise its a highway for invasion.
Which of these would you prefer:
1. No movement (make impassable)
2. Restricted movement (unit limit)
3. Defensive bonus (additional units)
My choice would be #2, but I think any of these choices would be better then the current situation.
Kim
If Norway is worth 4 (economically it should be worth no more than 2) to deter attacks, why not the same for Switzerland?
Again, I think the game is almost completely correct as is. If the Central Powers try to invade Switzerland, the French counterattack on Turn 1 would have air supremacy and wipe out the Germans, who would have no reinforcements in Munich at that time. If the Austrians devote troops there they lose any hope of momentum against Italy, and the road to Vienna is wide open. It diverts troops from Russia, and it makes the West Front longer, which is a BAD thing for the CPs if they want to knock out Russia first. If they push hard to the West, the Russians mass in Ukraine and march straight on Vienna. Result: CPs don’t want to attack Switzerland if they’re smart.
For the Allies, attacking Switzerland has all of the same disadvantages. The French need the troops elsewhere to try to take pressure off the Russians and the Italians REALLY don’t need to have a second territory threatened. Before going through all the crazy permutations suggested here, let me ask: how many people have played games where Switzerland held the key to victory? If so, go back and play it again now that the other side realizes that Switzerland is an “easy” target, and see if it works again. If it consistently works, then change the game. If not, DON’T. Hell, if you’re going to make defense better due to terrain, do the same thing for Tyrolia, and Bulgaria, and Persia, and Afghanistan…this sort of attempt at being hyper-historically correct reminds me of the agony that was old AH games: “Rule 1.2.1.1 - The rule that mechanized infantry and armor cannot cross straits without receiving the -2 penalty to dice rolls is negated in the case of the British Fifth Pony Company if the straits are from Hex XX25 to XY26”.
If Norway is worth 4 (economically it should be worth no more than 2) to deter attacks, why not the same for Switzerland?
Germany would still attack it to get 4 IPC a turn. If it stays at one , but with an army based on 4 nobody attacks it.
Do your moves of at most six units per turn into Switzerland. Then throw a die and that many units actually get to move into Switzerland. The rest stays where it wanted to move out of, like Munich. Makes it highly undesirable to move into, because you could potentially lose move,ent of five nits. If you move with only three units, then chances are smaller to lose movement, and s on.
If Norway is worth 4 (economically it should be worth no more than 2)
You got a problem with that ? Hey, remember that controll of Norway also represent the iron ore trade from Sweden, and the fact that Norway had the nr 3 largest merchant fleet of the world. Switzerland had like zip.
