Morale loss if Moscow falls? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

mussey -> Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 5:49:54 PM)

Quick question Folks (I'm at work without access to the rules). If Moscow falls do the Soviets loose morale pts?



Klydon -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 5:56:35 PM)

Nope

I have said this in the past and I still believe it. The Russians should take a minor ding to national moral (like 5 off) if they lose Moscow and get it back if they take it back. Right now, Moscow is just a spot on the map and does not reflect the importance it had in the campaign at all. This is why a lot of players are bailing out of making a central thrust a priority.



squatter -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 6:01:42 PM)

Agree with Klydon here.

Currently in game terms Leningrad is much more important than Moscow. Leningrad should always be important, but Moscow should be the big one. Right now the incentive is to go north to get the Finns into play, and to go south to catch soviets out in the open where its tank country. Moscow doesnt offer the easy terrain of the south, or the promise of extra forces like Leningrad, or much else that will impact the game right now.



mussey -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 6:31:45 PM)

YES!



ComradeP -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 6:39:44 PM)

A decrease in national morale would essentially mostly have an effect on units in Shock Armies or Guards units, as units can get to 50 by refitting.



mussey -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 7:03:45 PM)

Since Moscow didn't actually fall we have nothing to really model morale loss on. However, it would seem to me, with all due respect that morale would take a hit. Then the question remains by how much? Though immensely vast, Russia was a very centralized society run directly from the Kremlin in Moscow. Take it away and there would have to be some consequences to military cohesion?



squatter -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 7:15:36 PM)

I'd be tempted to play house rules in the future: if Germany holds Moscow at the end of the blizzard in Feb 1942, then game over. That would make Moscow a pretty tempting target all of a sudden.





ComradeP -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:00:09 PM)

That would probably be too serious, Moscow might be an important city and a capital city, but it's still a city and the USSR is vast. The argument about it being a transport hub is valid, but many places those rail lines lead to would probably be in Axis hands if Moscow can be captured. I don't think the Soviets would've stopped fighting.



squatter -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:15:46 PM)

Of course none of us can say with any certainty what the Soviets would have done had Moscow gone, and I'm not arguing I believe the Soviets would have asked for terms in this eventuality. But purely as a rule to balance gameplay, the assumption that they would fold if Moscow was out of their hands as of end blizzard Feb 42 - or something like this - might yet become an important house rule to balance the over-importance of Lenningrad.

On another note, how can we be sure the Finns would have moved to the in-game no-move line had Lenningrad fell? Yet this is in the game and taken as gospel.



LiquidSky -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:21:34 PM)



Well..what did they do in 1812, when moscow fell?



squatter -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:23:40 PM)

In fact, given that it is currently impossible to force an automatic victory in 41 for the germans on account of the extreme amount of victory points that need to be accumulated, I'd suggest these house rules:

Game ends in German automatic victory if:

1 in 1941 anytime Leningrad AND Moscow are in German hands.
Or
2 End of Feb 1942 Moscow is in German hands.
3 Any time 1942 three out of Moscow, Leningrad, Baku and Stalingrad in German hands.



pad152 -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:24:29 PM)

Well, I think something should be done to reward the player for taking Moscow, right now Leningrad offers more reward (additional use of Finnish units). Maybe a loss of a Admin Points, drop in supply, fuel, ammo, production, no reinforcements for several turns to reflect the lost of communication, command , central control falls a part while the Russian government sets up elsewhere.






ComradeP -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:25:04 PM)

quote:

On another note, how can we be sure the Finns would have moved to the in-game no-move line had Lenningrad fell? Yet this is in the game and taken as gospel.


That's something I'm not entirely happy with, I don't believe the Finns had the war economy to sustain it, not to mention that they were already suffering from mobilizing such a large part of their male population (1/5 or so at the frontline in 1944).



Aurelian -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:37:31 PM)

Moscow was just a city as far as Stalin was concerned.

They suffered losses in the millions, military and civilian alike.

They lost territory much larger than any country Germany overran.

And yet, their morale didn't collapse. Instead, it rose more or less to a fury.

IIRC, the gov't moved to Kuybuyshev anyway. So outside of being a rail hub.....

And Moscow fell in 1812. Didn't do much being that Alexander I wasn't there.





Aurelian -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:41:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Well, I think something should be done to reward the player for taking Moscow, right now Leningrad offers more reward (additional use of Finnish units). Maybe a loss of a Admin Points, drop in supply, fuel, ammo, production, no reinforcements for several turns to reflect the lost of communication, command , central control falls a part while the Russian government sets up elsewhere.






The Russian gov't *did* set up elsewhere. No control problems arose.



squatter -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:56:06 PM)

Again, I dont suggest this because it's my belief that's certainly what would have happened. Rather, it's something that would potentially make the game more exciting, and certainly would have been a possible scenario if such an eventuality had occurred.

Let's not forget there is strong evidence the Soviets were close to asking for terms as it was during 1941, I believe



Aditia -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:56:54 PM)

According to Antony Beevor, in his work about Stalingrad, in the opening week Stalin was already discussing surrender with his direct subordinates and asked the Bulgarian ambassador if he would act as an intermediary to sue for peace with Hitler. The Bulgarian ambassador apparently refused saying "Even if you retreat to the Urals, you will still win".



pad152 -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 8:59:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Well, I think something should be done to reward the player for taking Moscow, right now Leningrad offers more reward (additional use of Finnish units). Maybe a loss of a Admin Points, drop in supply, fuel, ammo, production, no reinforcements for several turns to reflect the lost of communication, command , central control falls a part while the Russian government sets up elsewhere.






The Russian gov't *did* set up elsewhere. No control problems arose.


They did and where and when was that? Command and Control (central planing) never came from anywhere but Moscow, that I know of.



Klydon -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 9:31:30 PM)

Moscow of 1812 was not the capital like Moscow of 1941.

The Russian government did move to Kuybuyshev, but that was more the politburo, etc I think. Stalin stayed in Moscow and the war was run from there.

I guess by ComradeP's comment about moral loss only affecting Guards and Shock Armies, something is hard wired for a minimal national moral. My suggestion is the base moral gets dropped. Guards and Shock Armies would still enjoy their benefits compared to regular Russian units.

Arguments/opinions could continue forever on the worth of capturing Moscow with the spectrum being anywhere of causing a complete collapse to nothing at all beyond capturing the city. Without it really happening, then it all does come down to a guess. I believe in neither of the extreme scenarios I mention (complete collapse or nothing) but rather it is someplace in the middle. Also in my opinion, this game needs something to make the Germans be interested in capturing Moscow in terms of causing some harm to the Russians over what it means right now because right now, there is no additional benefit to doing it. Until that happens, most Germans are not going to bother rolling the dice on a campaign to capture Moscow in 1941 because the rewards in game terms simply are not there compared to Leningrad and/or the south. Doing a 5 moral base drop, in my opinion, is realistic and puts targeting Moscow on the table for conversation again for the Germans.



Aditia -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 9:37:08 PM)

No need to focus on morale per se, maybe a slight decrease in AP generation for a few months to reflect the political mess the loss of moscow would entail is perhaps a better idea. It also reflects the same kind of bonus leningrad has for the Axis. Capturing Leningrad means shorter lines for german divisions, means more opportunity for the germans to conduct offensives in 1942. Losing Moscow, would mean less AP, means slower build up for the Soviets in 1942.



Klydon -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 9:48:58 PM)

I could go with a AP reduction, but would rather see it be in effect until the Russians manage to recapture the city. One issue with this tho is the Russian AI gets unlimited AP's to spend, so there would be no effect in such a case. 



AZKGungHo -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 9:49:27 PM)

I think that the real impact on losing Moscow would have been on the national morale of the people, and on the willingness of the other Allies to continue to pour all that support into a country that was clearly losing. I think there should be a morale hit for losing Moscow, just because of it's symbolic importance if nothing else.



Aditia -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 9:53:19 PM)

The problem lies with the way 'morale' is modeled in the game, as it is an overall quality modifier, That's why I suggested the AP effect. Letting the AP effect last until recapturing might be too harsh on balance. You want the capture of Moscow to give the Soviet player a bloody nose, not make it a make or break thing.



kirkgregerson -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/8/2011 10:07:09 PM)

Yes, morale in WitE is not troop morale as one would think by a straight Webster definition.  This was explained to me when I questioned why Rom (all minors really) have such crappy morale, when in reality 'troop morale' for several minor allied units was quite high and comparable to German troop morale in 41.


BTW: let me go on record saying I'm still not very happy or impressed by the way morale (troop or not) is modeled in WitE, but maybe that is just me. Also, I have some Romain friends that still refuse to buy WitE because they are insulted by the way the game models Romanian combat units. Can't blame them as they have relatives that lost their lives in that war and they feel insulted. There's some good books about how well some of these Romanian troops fought in WW2 and even Manstein in his memoirs mentions that several Romanian units performed very well considered their some what lack in modern equipment.



RCHarmon -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/9/2011 12:00:27 AM)

If I was Romanian, I would be insulted playing this game as they are all modeled very low. In the game game they are only good for carrying water and cutting wood. In the campaign game that I am presently playing, for the first blizzard I trained them all back to Romania and didn't bring them back until mud season the next spring. I was amazed that they still took attrition loses. Didn't the Romanians have any respected units? Their big problem was their equipment and mostly in the form of the lack of anti tank weapons.

The Hungarians do fight okay. When I put them on the line they can hold.

The Italians are worse than the Romanians and I would be insulted if I was Italian.

I have read some German accounts that stated that the individual Italian soldier fought well. It was their junk equipment and poor officers that caused their disgrace on the battle field.

For what my opinion is worth, Moscow was definitely a prize and is just another city on the map for the game. I would like to see some benefit for the Axis if it falls.



Klydon -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/9/2011 12:12:21 AM)

The individual Romanian solder was tough and could do well under good leadership, despite their equipment. (Mostly WW1 era). The worst issue was their officers were bad.. as in Italian bad. The second issue was they really didn't want to fight the Russians past what the Russians took from them, so their heart as a nation was really never in the war against Russia. To model them any other way would be an insult to what realistically happen. Romanian units did suck. That is a fact.

The Italians don't really need any extra explanation between how crappy their equipment was and how badly their officer corps was. They played no significant role on the Eastern front except to act as speed bumps against the Russians. No real desire or will to participate in the campaign against the Russians. They were political tokens and knew it.

The biggest equipment issue the Axis allies had on the eastern front was anti-tank defense. They simply did not have the anti tank weapons to deal with the newer Russian tanks. (This was a common theme for the Italians in Africa against the British Matilda/Valentine tanks as well).




RCHarmon -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/9/2011 12:32:23 AM)

I need to read more about the eastern front especially concerning the Axis non German armies. I know the Romanians were begging for anti tanks weapons from the Germans (their own countries couldn't provide anything), especially while Stalingrad was going on. The Germans didn't give them much if any as there was a shortage of equipment.

I have read that most of the tanks that were with the the 6th army at Stalingrad should have been pulled back. The Germans knew that The Russians were building up their troops north and south of Stalingrad and didn't do much to meet it. The tanks that were trapped in Stalingrad with 6th army should have been pulled out before the Russian attack and grouped into a combat group to deal with any attack along the flanks. Of course, the 6th army should never had been left so exposed to begin with. That is where this game comes in. Can war in the Eastern front be properly modeled to reflect what if scenarios?



Lrfss -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/9/2011 12:38:05 AM)

This site has an interesting bit on the Romanians from the start of the campaign to the end. I find the part about the Amphib Operation surprising...

http://junebarbarossa.devhub.com/blog/2968-romanian-army/



Aditia -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/9/2011 1:02:58 AM)

How about not going off topic with political bullshit? The question of making Moscow a bigger prize in the game is interesting.

Personally I am offended that Dutch SS unit only has a number and not its name, but since that it is not politically correct I felt obliged to buy the game to hide my political incorrectness.

Gotta scoot, they are giving away free internets down the street!



PyleDriver -> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? (4/9/2011 1:18:48 AM)

I always pushed for a morale loss during testing If Moscow was taken...Oh well..



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7