Simple proposition for Moscow

Simple proposition for Moscow (Full Version)

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

Message

Rafo35 -> Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 12:14:49 PM)
I think Leningrad is way overrated in most Axis players strategy, but I also agree with most people saying that Moscow is not given its due. I think there is a simple way too improve Moscow value, easy to implement : - divide by 2 the Soviet rail capacity as long as Moscow is German or cut off ; - substract 10 AP each turn that Moscow is German or cut off. It takes into account Moscow historical role as the major hub of the Soviet economy and military activities.

heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 2:57:24 PM)
The problem with the AP issue is that it creates a negative feedback loop. If you lose APs, you might be unable to do very important things like build new units. A morale hit is often discussed, and rightly so. I think the rate at which Generals get dismissed should increase when Moscow falls too. Stalin would get desperate.

Tarhunnas -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 3:16:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 The problem with the AP issue is that it creates a negative feedback loop. That's the thing with losing your capital, it often does have a detrimental effect on the war effort. I think this is a good Idea. So good that I have suggested it myself elsewhere. [8D]

heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 3:46:53 PM)
At a certain level, such mechanics can provide an "Iwin" button. I don't know that 10 APs would do that (but I think it would), but that's the risk. So imagine all of AGC and AGS focusing only on Moscow in order to obtain that leverage. It COULD be a perverse incentive. Once Moscow falls, then the German has a lot more leverage to do things he should have been doing all along. What's the counter-balance? If you incentivize something to a high degree, shouldn't there be counter-balances? What happens if you use all your AGS panzers in the pursuit of Smolensk/Rzhev/Moscow but you ignore Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk until you obtain the reward of a gamey tactic to force the opponent to lose 20% of his APs? Does that point make sense?

Q-Ball -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 3:47:17 PM)
Despite losing Moscow myself, I think it should be more important. The Rail Cap is too harsh, and at any rate, not that valid IMO. The Soviets showed time and time again a unique ingenuity in improvising when industrial points fell. APs might work The Morale Hit is valid

vlcz -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 4:11:28 PM)
The rail cap is arbitrary and the admin point losing especulative. now you lose manpower and railyards, is there any proof that numbers are not right? any industry should be fixed in position? Moscow was taken indeed a century earlier, by Napoleon , he thought that it should spell disaster for russians and we all know the results. Adjusting national morale (for both sides) with casualties/terrain/evacuations, not directly dependant of the year as it is done, would be a very elegant way to represent "being winning".

Tarhunnas -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 4:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vlcz The rail cap is arbitrary and the admin point losing especulative. now you lose manpower and railyards, is there any proof that numbers are not right? any industry should be fixed in position? Moscow was taken indeed a century earlier, by Napoleon , he thought that it should spell disaster for russians and we all know the results. Adjusting national morale (for both sides) with casualties/terrain/evacuations, not directly dependant of the year as it is done, would be a very elegant way to represent "being winning". The Russians defeated Napoleon in spite of losing Moscow, it's not as if they didn't care. I think it likely the Soviets would have defeated Germany even if they had lost Moscow, but as the OP pointed out, at present Leningrad is the big prize in the game, which is somewhat different from what the Germans thought at the time.

Flaviusx -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 4:36:00 PM)
The Soviets already lose a ton of rail cap when Moscow falls. To put this in perspective: at the beginning of the game the Sovs have a bit under 150k rail cap. Q ball in his game is down to less than 90k. Moscow also has much industry, particularly aircraft industry, and if that goes, it's going to hurt over the course of the war. I really think people are severely underestimating this.

Rafo35 -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 5:42:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heliodorus04 What's the counter-balance? If you incentivize something to a high degree, shouldn't there be counter-balances? What happens if you use all your AGS panzers in the pursuit of Smolensk/Rzhev/Moscow but you ignore Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk until you obtain the reward of a gamey tactic to force the opponent to lose 20% of his APs? Concentrating forces to take Moscow a gamey tactic ??? [X(] In case it isn't clear : the AP and rail capacity losses would be there as long as Moscow is German (or cut off). So once this is done, the German have to keep it to enjoy the benefit. What's the counter-balance ? 1/ It can fails ... and maybe the Soviet will have to fight soonner rather that later on the Moscow road, risking to suffer a lot lof losses in the process (if it sounds familiar, it's what happenned historically) ; 2/ You are weaker against Leningrad and/or in Ukraine if you want to have a go at Moscow before the mud, if you don't, it means you won't enjoy much of a benefit before facing the Soviet winter counter-offensive. One of the reason why Moscow is not so important in the game is because of the infinite capacity of all the railway and raylway stations (note that the Germans take benefit of this a lot more than the Soviets by the way). The reality was of course different and the major transport hub couldn't be evacuated, unlike the government and major parts of the industry and the population. One final note : I don't see the 10 AP losses per turn as a huge punition for losing Moscow. For instance, losing Moscow for 6 weeks, a Soviet nightmare IRL, would only cost them the equivalent of 1 turn of AP. This will hardly be noticed when 43 is reached. 10 AP, you can lose that much when you fail an AP check !

Klydon -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 6:26:21 PM)
For those that insist on comparing Moscow of 1812 vs Moscow of WW2, allow me to point a few things out please: Moscow of 1812 is not the nerve center of the nation (St Petersburg was). Moscow of 1812 is not the center of the rail net in the country. Losing the Moscow of 1812 had much less effect on the army in the immediate area in terms of logistics. Armies of 1812 needed much less than "modern" armies of 1941 in terms of ammo, food, etc. There is also the sheer numbers difference involved as well. The Russians and Germans threw upwards of 1 million troops on each side into the battle. The Grand Army and the Imperial Russian army were in the neighborhood of 250k combined or so. Napoleon sought to capture Moscow because he thought the Russians would defend it to the last man. He was wrong when they abandoned Moscow to the Grand Army. The German general staff sought to capture Moscow because they thought the Russians would defend it to the last man. Every indication is they were correct, but getting a campaign underway at the end of September/first of October in Russia speaks of its own stupidity. Moscow needs to have some additional tangible benefit in order to make it a priority target. Leningrad is the only location on the map (outside of Baku) in Russia that there is a good cause/effect, making it a priority for the Germans to capture and the Russians to try to hold. There have been a lot of good suggestions made. (National moral loss and/or AP loss, etc). Adding something like that in would give the Germans a reason to make Moscow a priority in game terms. Right now, the biggest intangible in capturing Moscow in a player vs player game is the moral hit the Russian PLAYER takes in losing his capital. Should something be put in place for Moscow, then I think the three target areas will be fairly complete. Leningrad, freeing the Finns, Moscow with its moral loss and/or AP loss, and the Don Bas with all population in the area along with a huge amount of armaments in the area that at least faces downtime with relocation. The Germans will want to do well in all three areas, but probably can only afford to make one of the three a priority.

gradenko2k -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 6:42:56 PM)
Moscow already carries a large amount of industry and rail capacity. I think some kind of AP loss would be appropriate though - that's supposed to be the bottleneck for the Soviets anyway: The Germans can never run them out of men, but they can (should?) run them out of counters to fill men with.

randallw -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 7:20:43 PM)
The problem with decreasing the Soviet morale, from a loss of Moscow, is that the morale 'level' is being perceived in literal words, and not how the game designers use the morale level ( as some type of training standard ).

Pawlock -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 8:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The Soviets already lose a ton of rail cap when Moscow falls. To put this in perspective: at the beginning of the game the Sovs have a bit under 150k rail cap. Q ball in his game is down to less than 90k. Moscow also has much industry, particularly aircraft industry, and if that goes, it's going to hurt over the course of the war. I really think people are severely underestimating this. +1 Totally agree with Flaviusx, a lot of rail cap is lost at Moscow as well as 90+ manpower and so much more. I tend to agree Moscow should be more of a focus however, but instead of yet another Soviet hamstring,perhaps look at it the other way and give Moscow extra perks whilst it is still in Soviet hands.

cookie monster -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 9:24:46 PM)
I honestly don't understand this idea of a morale penalty for losing Moscow. If London was taken the English would be inspired to fight to regain the city. When Coventry/London were bombed, they just went back and did it bigger and better. Apologies German readers. Russia is a very large country, losing Moscow would only have made the Russian Army fight very hard to regain the capital. Morale loss, eh, more like a credible political motive for inspiring the troops.

Ridgeway -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 9:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cookie monster I honestly don't understand this idea of a morale penalty for losing Moscow. If London was taken the English would be inspired to fight to regain the city. When Coventry/London were bombed, they just went back and did it bigger and better. Apologies German readers. Russia is a very large country, losing Moscow would only have made the Russian Army fight very hard to regain the capital. Morale loss, eh, more like a credible political motive for inspiring the troops. I totally agree. Plus, as someone else mentioned, in WITE, morale <> "morale" in the conventional sense I see two things that would have happened had Moscow fallen. 1) The government and STAVKA would have relocated far to the East. This would likely have had serious C&C impacts which should be simulated. I am not sure AP loss is the best way to sim this though. 2) The railnet would have been severely disrupted. I understand that Moscow currently contains significant railyards, but I do not think that reflects the fact that essentially all the main rail lines ran through Moscow. As it is, all rail lines are equal in WITE, so the Russian player can rail significant amounts of traffic over tracks that IRL could not have supported it. I accept that this is a given and will not be changed. However, it seems to me that a significant reduction in rail cap would be a reasonable reflection of the disruption that losing Moscow would have caused. I would also argue that these changes should be reversible once the Russians recapture and hold Moscow for a certain period (and fix the rails etc.)

heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 9:51:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cookie monster I honestly don't understand this idea of a morale penalty for losing Moscow. If London was taken the English would be inspired to fight to regain the city. When Coventry/London were bombed, they just went back and did it bigger and better. Apologies German readers. Russia is a very large country, losing Moscow would only have made the Russian Army fight very hard to regain the capital. Morale loss, eh, more like a credible political motive for inspiring the troops. At a certain point, we're all engaging in conjecture. The loss of Paris was no morale boost for the French. (You might argue they already knew they were beaten, but can't the same be said of the Soviet fighting man in week 14 of Barbarossa?) The loss of Sicily did not inspire Italians. The loss of Manila gave no resolve to US troops on the Philippines. These things may inspire civilians to endure more hardships, as Dunkirk did the British, as Pearl Harbor did the Americans, and as Barbarossa did Soviets. But for the fighting man, who actually faces the trajectory of the MG-34, some cataclysms instill in him hopelessness, and hopelessness inspires self-preservation in the form of early retreat & surrender. The 1941 Soviet rifleman was known more for retreat and surrender than resolve, wasn't he? Since it didn't happen historically, we can't say for certain. I just think the game needs to be more rewarding to play and needs to incentivize terrain more.

Tarhunnas -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 9:56:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pawlock another Soviet hamstring [sm=00000116.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif]

heliodorus04 -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 10:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas quote: ORIGINAL: Pawlock another Soviet hamstring [sm=00000116.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif][sm=00000280.gif] I think what he means is yet another way for 1941 to become a fun-leach for the Soviet player.

Scook_99 -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 10:22:30 PM)
I am kinda happy with the way it is, especially if you can bag any industry with the fall of Moscow. The rail and manpower hits are large, imo. I could go with a small morale hit, but we can speculate whether it should be up or down (depends on circumstances). I wouldn't change AP in the least though.

Klydon -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/20/2011 11:25:27 PM)
I think something else being overlooked perhaps is that with the way things are right now, Leningrad is always going to be a serious target for the Germans simply because sufficient incentive has not been given to put other areas in play. It should be noted that even if other incentives are put in play, Leningrad may still remain target number 1 for many German players simply because of how the map lays out. (My own opinion is the Germans should have taken Leningrad first, then had as much of AGN advance to the SE as possible towards Moscow and go from there, but others will have different opinions and there is nothing wrong with that). I think giving a bit more incentive with Moscow and as realization/education about the importance of the Don Bas comes out, then the German has more choices on what to stake their campaign on. Each area should have its advantages and drawbacks for both sides in a grand strategic sense.

jomni -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/21/2011 2:14:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cookie monster Russia is a very large country, losing Moscow would only have made the Russian Army fight very hard to regain the capital. You are correct. But if nohting is at stake at losing Moscow, then the Russian player as no incentive to recapture it. Morale is game mechanic that affect the whole Soviet Union so both sides have a big incentive to grab Moscow. But logically it may not be the right incentive as some has pointed out. BTW, I don't have any concrete opinion on this issue and I like the current setup.

jwduquette1 -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/21/2011 3:01:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Scook_99 I am kinda happy with the way it is, especially if you can bag any industry with the fall of Moscow. The rail and manpower hits are large, imo. I could go with a small morale hit, but we can speculate whether it should be up or down (depends on circumstances). I wouldn't change AP in the least though. I also think the game -- at least with respect to this particular item -- is fine as is. The incentive to capture Moscow by an Axis player is strategic and long term. The industry as well as manpower and rail capacity loss associated with Moscow are actually pretty substantial long term hits to the Soviet war effort. There is a lot of key industry focused in these three city hexes -- so much so that evacuation to the Urals is a pretty tough proposition. Moscow is also a key strategic rail road hub. Loss of Moscow makes east-west shifting of reserves back and forth between fronts a real challenge. If German players arent seeing any real benifit in a 1941 strategy that focuses on the capture of Moscow, than it's pretty evident that they havent played the Russians side of the game.

pat.casey -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/21/2011 8:38:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwduquette1 quote: ORIGINAL: Scook_99 I am kinda happy with the way it is, especially if you can bag any industry with the fall of Moscow. The rail and manpower hits are large, imo. I could go with a small morale hit, but we can speculate whether it should be up or down (depends on circumstances). I wouldn't change AP in the least though. I also think the game -- at least with respect to this particular item -- is fine as is. The incentive to capture Moscow by an Axis player is strategic and long term. The industry as well as manpower and rail capacity loss associated with Moscow are actually pretty substantial long term hits to the Soviet war effort. There is a lot of key industry focused in these three city hexes -- so much so that evacuation to the Urals is a pretty tough proposition. Moscow is also a key strategic rail road hub. Loss of Moscow makes east-west shifting of reserves back and forth between fronts a real challenge. If German players arent seeing any real benifit in a 1941 strategy that focuses on the capture of Moscow, than it's pretty evident that they havent played the Russians side of the game. Oh, I think German players see a benefit, its just that its not a sufficiently large benefit, especially relative to the bounty of goodness that comes from a capture of Leningrad. Its entirely possible that the real issue isn't that the game undervalues moscow's capture, but rather that the game overvalue's lenningrad, but regardless of where the error lies virtually all 1941 German players prioritize Lenningrad, and moscow is up there with the Donetz basin; nice to have, but not necessary. Consider in game, taking Leningrad frees the fins, the single most important thing a German player can do to offset the 1941 winter. Taking Moscow, in contrast, destroys (maybe) some factories and give you three nice urban hexes to hide in in 1941. Playing the game as written, and given a choice in september of 1941 between moscow and lenningrad, I'd pick lenningrad every time which I do not believe is either historical or good for gameplay purposes.

hfarrish -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/21/2011 9:40:53 PM)
I've been following this debate with some interest - wouldn't the easiest solution just to have additional "permanent" VPs accrue to the German player for the period of time they hold Moscow? This would give an extra incentive without adding a questionable blunt instrument (like APs or especially morale). Maybe I'm missing something on the scoring system though, since I've never paid that much attention to it.

Klydon -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/21/2011 10:06:54 PM)
Part of the issue is that while there is a scoring system for the various scenarios (and you can put different point values on each location), there is none for the campaign game. It goes strictly by city hexes held.

Joel Billings -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/21/2011 10:45:01 PM)
Moscow is 16 VPs, and thus about 5% of the total VP points on the map (Berlin is the same). I can appreciate the arguement about rail capacity due to the reality of the rail lines. As has been stated, not all rail lines are the same. Back in 2000 when we first started on this game, Keith and Gary had the idea to track the amount of activity going over any rail hex, both units and supplies/production items. However, after writing some code, it became clear this was a huge issue to deal with and not something we felt was worth the cost in coding time, speed of play and added complexity to the player (and code). One way to have dealt with this would be to make the rail capacity of Moscow greater than it is as a percentage of the Soviet total, but I'm not saying that the way it is done now is wrong. I'd want to hear from people that know more about the importance of Moscow as a rail hub before coming to the conclusion the the current railyards in Moscow aren't enough. Also, keep in mind that both the Germans and Soviets benefit from being able to move too many units down the same track. Someday maybe a way to deal with this will be developed, but it would be a major undertaking.

delatbabel -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 8:41:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings Moscow is 16 VPs, and thus about 5% of the total VP points on the map (Berlin is the same). I can appreciate the arguement about rail capacity due to the reality of the rail lines. As has been stated, not all rail lines are the same. Back in 2000 when we first started on this game, Keith and Gary had the idea to track the amount of activity going over any rail hex, both units and supplies/production items. However, after writing some code, it became clear this was a huge issue to deal with and not something we felt was worth the cost in coding time, speed of play and added complexity to the player (and code). One way to have dealt with this would be to make the rail capacity of Moscow greater than it is as a percentage of the Soviet total, but I'm not saying that the way it is done now is wrong. I'd want to hear from people that know more about the importance of Moscow as a rail hub before coming to the conclusion the the current railyards in Moscow aren't enough. Also, keep in mind that both the Germans and Soviets benefit from being able to move too many units down the same track. Someday maybe a way to deal with this will be developed, but it would be a major undertaking. I haven't lived in Moscow during WWII times and have only visited there in post-Soviet times but I can tell you that Moscow is an important rail hub for the entire country even today. One of the things about the Moscow rail network is that it's a "spider web" type construction (and has been since the pre-war days). The main stations connecting to the other cities of Russia are around the outside of the web, and there is a network of inner lines connecting those up. The marshalling yards are in the inner part of the web. So even significant damage to the rail infrastructure in the city will significantly disrupt transport between, say, Leningrad and Rostov. Capture of outer parts of the rail network will only disrupt that and nearby parts of the network, and damage to or capture of part of the inner network can be routed around, but significant damage to the marshalling yards will probably put a strain on the rail capacity right throughout Russia. I am not a railroad engineer so this is my best guess at best. Try getting hold of a railways map of Moscow. The underground network is new of course as are several of the lines but a lot of the infrastructure has been in place for a long time. Someone with a better understanding of rail networks may be able to understand quite well what would have happened in a theoretical WWII loss of Moscow situation just from studying the modern network.

delatbabel -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 8:43:24 AM)
Another suggestion: Allow the Finns to attack and move south of the no-attack line only after the capture of Moscow. Finnish reluctance to enter into a full blown attack on the Soviets was engendered by a belief that the Soviets would eventually defeat the Germans based on their manpower and industry capacity, not from the fall of one nearby city.

Tarhunnas -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 11:41:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delatbabel Another suggestion: Allow the Finns to attack and move south of the no-attack line only after the capture of Moscow. Finnish reluctance to enter into a full blown attack on the Soviets was engendered by a belief that the Soviets would eventually defeat the Germans based on their manpower and industry capacity, not from the fall of one nearby city. That was a good suggestion, thinking outside the box! However, the disadvantage is that the fall of Moscow would then more or less guarantee the fall of Leningrad. Not sure that is what we would want.

ComradeP -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 12:08:35 PM)
I'm not sure if Leningrad is "overvalued". It's almost impossible to retake for the Soviets due to it not being a city they can isolate (there's a port and the Karelian Isthmus allows for normal supply in any case. If the Soviets push across the Svir, the Finns should be able to hold the 3 hexes from lake Ladoga to the map edge pretty easily. What makes Moscow a primary target, it being in a central position, is also what makes it far more difficult to defend the city in a strategic sense, as it can be isolated with far less difficulty than Leningrad (which would require retaking Tallinn and knocking Finland out of the war). That's also why the manual advises against going for Moscow in 1941, I think, because you can't really push the front far enough to be sure that you can hold it most of the time.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125