Mountain Rules

[pat.casey]

Is it just me or is it no easier to defend mountains than it is to defend in the plains? I'm largely speaking about the Italian front here, but the same principals are at work in the carpathians or Caucuses.

The problem with defending, say, the alps, as the CP is twofold:

1) You have a stacking limit so you're stuck with, at most, 2 corps per hex.
2) You are on the far side of 2 hexes of weak supply so your troops have supply problems

In contrast, the entente can stack up 4 deep in the north italian plains which are 100% supply. Then he can, and will, swarm you. The slight defensive bonus you get from mountain terrain doesn't seem to offset the stacking limits you are forced to deal with.

Point being I guess that I'd like to be able to hold the Italian front static with the CP (after all, that's more or less what happened historically), but the game mechanics seem to dictate that the Italians are pretty much guaranteed to take ground (and that's without the BEF deciding to deply to venice).

[hjaco]

Two alternatives:

1) Make an preemptive offensive to get into the clear hexes in Italy
(or knock them out).

2) Empty the Trent hexrow (4 hexes) and let the Italians be low on supply.

[pat.casey]

There's ways to game around it (I don't dispute that). My concern is merely that as a game mechanism the current mountain rules seem to make mountain ranges less defensible than clear terrain which seems to defy historical precedent and logic.

[hjaco]

Oh but you an hold that line although you may have to counterattack occasionally to get some lost hex back.

Some notes for that:

Entrenchment and full stacked units are the main key factor.

Avoid having anything but A corps where artillery is going to strike.

Have reserves in the rear area to rotate battered front line units.

Bleed the Italians with artillery from Trieste - preferably with air support.

[Akmatov]

Hmm, still see a problem with the Alps being no more a hinderance than the Hungarian plains - utterly wrong, no matter how one games around it.  That terrain is insanely difficult for military operations - hence the Italian war being mostly one suicide charge after another at the mountains.

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

Hmm, still see a problem with the Alps being no more a hinderance than the Hungarian plains - utterly wrong, no matter how one games around it. That terrain is insanely difficult for military operations - hence the Italian war being mostly one suicide charge after another at the mountains.

Agreed, the defensive advantage in a mountain hex should be much greater than it is currently modeled.

[SMK-at-work]

I dont' see how you can consider the Alps to be no more a hinderance than plains - for starters cavalry cannot be used to sieze empty hexes in the alps - every advance requiers use of activations points, and if you haven't figured it out already they are EXPENSIVE and pre-war points need to be husbanded with great vigilance against frivolous use.
 
An attacker loses readiness points just for moving into the mountains before any combat takes place...so putting the attacker at an instant disadvantage.  IIRC mountains also have an effect similar to a lvl 1 entrenchement that cannot be destroyed by artillery. 
 
If the attacker is successful then they will have crappy supply.....so will regain readiness only very slowly and be horribly vulnerable to counter attack.
 
All in all a defender who has been in the mountains for a little time does have all the advantages over the attacker IMO.