JAMiAM
Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Klydon Doing something to make Moscow a little more valuble would help as well to give both the Axis more choices and also the Russians more choices in terms of what to defend. Admittedly, in most of my Axis games, I have ended up changing strategic goals during the Summer and Fall to prioritize various 'non-Moscow' objectives. For example last minute dashes into the Donets basin, Crimea, Leningrad, elimination of Soviet forces, or just capturing real estate in the "great chewy center" between Kharkov and Tula. However, that is a product of me trying different things, and getting hopelessly distracted. That said, I have never just thought that Moscow wasn't valuable enough to attempt taking. Further, in order to make good progress anywhere else often hinges on how credible a threat you can manage to put Moscow under. With all the industry, rail capacity, and manpower that is in Moscow, it is a big, juicy target. With the woods, and large number of size 4 towns surrounding it, it becomes a good wintering place for the Wehrmacht. I think that Moscow has a lot going for it as a primary target in the game, or at least a strong secondary. Even if the Axis player fails to take it, the threat of taking it can cause the Soviet player to evacuate the industry, leaving his production reduced during the period of time in which it takes to undergo the repairs. In short, I think that there are already plenty of reasons, in the game, to try and take Moscow. I don't see the need to add any special rules, or hits to the Soviets should it fall.
|