Fromage Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 When war is declared to neutral country (or russia), all the defenders has entrenchment level 0. IMHO it's unrealistic and bad for the gameplay. If historically some neutral country would see lot of armies concentrating on it's border, I would imagine that they would prepare better defence positions fast. So how about full entrencment for all units when it enters the war? I think current game play is a bit too gamey when every small country can be capped in one turn with 2 armies and some air fleets. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 One bear's opinion: You raise some good points, especially that a neutral would do SOMETHING to prepare defences if it saw an attack coming. But a turn in SC is two weeks to one month. When the Germans had the Blitzkrieg market cornered (39-40), they knocked small countries out in just about that time. So the result in the game isn't too far from historically accurate. It's possible for the Germans to do Low Countries, Denmark and Norway in one turn (each!), but they have to get their air organized. Greece also falls like the rain in Spain to an amphibious assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 All good points. I agree that a neutral country will not have time to prepare if the Axis launches a quick invasion. However, if the axis takes time to build up troops alongthe border I could see the neutrals starting the game entrenched. Example: Germany concentrates 4+ units along the Yugoslavian border for 5 turns waiting for the right moment to intervene. Example: Germany concentrates 3+ units along the Swedish border for 3 turns and has one unit waiting in transports off the Swedish coast for 2 turns. I would say that as a rule if 3+ land units are along a minor neutrals border for 3 or more turns then the entrenchment level of their troops should increase by 1 per turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Interesting thread, good points by everyone. As was mentioned earlier, historically most minor neutrals didn't last long against invasions by major nations. Greece was the exception against Italy (which did everything wrong, including launching the invasion during the rainy season!) but even they didn't last long against German stukas and panzers. Edwin What happens if there are three potential invaders massed along the border, the neutral becomes dug in, and the massed armies move elsewhere -- is the neutral still dug in ten turns later? Not trying to bust chops, just curious and exploring the idea a bit. I think there should also be a chance of the neutral becoming intimidated and joining the threatening power before an invasion is launched. [ April 13, 2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 JerseyJohn I agree with your comments. I had not thought of what happens when the threatening armies move away. I think that if the armies move away that the defending units entrenchment level should decrease by 1 per turn or be reduced to zero imediately (as the neutral government would probably want to reduce the mobilization level ASAP) I agree with your suggestion that intimidation should have a role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Edwin, sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorskii Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Interesting. Got another loophole for you. What happens when UK puts a bunch of ships off of Spain so that Spain is entrenched when Germany invades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 If Spain saw transports off their coast they would entrench their forces and prepare to defeat an invasion, and if the Germans attacked while the Spaniards were prepared to face the Allies, they would face entrenched forces. Of course, if the allies were to follow this strategy they would have to station 3 transports off the Spanish coast (as I would have the entrenchment rule only kick in if 3 land units of the Axis or Allies was on a neutral's border). Would this be a wise use of allied resources? Could they be protected while they wait off the coast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted April 19, 2003 Share Posted April 19, 2003 Originally posted by Fromage: When war is declared to neutral country (or russia), all the defenders has entrenchment level 0. IMHO it's unrealistic and bad for the gameplay. If historically some neutral country would see lot of armies concentrating on it's border, I would imagine that they would prepare better defence positions fast. So how about full entrencment for all units when it enters the war? I think current game play is a bit too gamey when every small country can be capped in one turn with 2 armies and some air fleets. What do you think? I agree. Some countries (not all) should have better defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts