Paradrops through neutral territory - Is it intended?

[zechi]

In one of my games I noted that a Paradrop is possible through neutral territory and I lost a key city (one Italian surrender city) in October 1944, because I thought it was not possible to jump through neutral Vichy and Switzerland. Italy would be lost anyway soon, so it will only lead to a quicker end, but I asked myself if this rule is intended?

I falsely assumed that air strikes were not possible through neutral territory, but it seems this is possible. In case of air strikes it could be argued that neutral airspace was sometimes breached by the belligerents in WW2 despite international law forbidding it. However, I don't think that such a breach would realistic in case a whole Paradivision would be transported through foreign air space.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This is part of the game engine and was discussed before. You can actually make airstrikes across neutral territory. Paradrops use the same rule as airstrikes.

The game engine only checks the distance in hexes from the airbase to the target and not via friendly hexes. I guess this is so because air units can move in both land and sea hexes.

I'm not sure how a neutral country could prevent a major power flying across its territory. I don't think the neutral country would go to war because of such an incident. If we had diplomacy in GS then we could have made violations of neutral airspace turn the country slightly towards the other side so it could eventually join the other side.

A typical neutral country was Sweden. In fact Sweden was not completely neutral. It allowed German troops to be sent from Germany to Norway and Finland using the Swedish rail network. German soldiers near Narvik in 1940 were almost beaten by the Allies and escaped by moving into Swedish territory. They were not interned and could move back to the Norwegian territory once the British and French troops were evacuated due to Case Yellow having started.

So I don't think this is a big issue.

[zechi]

I'm not sure how a neutral country could prevent a major power flying across its territory. I don't think the neutral country would go to war because of such an incident.

The Swiss airforce engaged and shot down German as well as Allied airplanes several occasions, but remained neutral. In fact a nation would not be considered as "neutral" if they did not act against violation of their airspace. If they would tolerate the use of "neutral" airspace by a belligerent, then this would not be "neutral" and could be seen as an unfriendly act or even actual support for one of the belligerents.

So I don't think this is a big issue.

I agree that it is not a big issue, but from my point of view it would be more realistic if neutral airspace could not be used for air strikes/paradrops. As violation of neutral airspace happened regularly but not massively as represented in the game through whole paradivisions or air units.

Furthermore, it would make more sense as air units cannot move through neutral airspace, but can only attack through it.

[Plaid]

Problem that you can send paratrooper via naval transport to the other end of the world, entrench there and hold attacks for months without any (even naval) supply seems more disturbing feature of paratroopers, then drops through neutral territory.

I believe if strategically necessary both allies and axis would violate neutrality of minor country without second thought. So don't worth fixing, if you ask me.
I'd rather tolerate ability to send air transports through switzerland then to see allies DoW Switzerland in most of games.