Morale loss if Moscow falls?

[von Beanie]

I'm guessing that many of the people responding to this thread haven't played as the Soviet side in a human vs human game. In 1.04 and later Soviet rail capacity is large, but completely inadequate to remove most of the threatened industry in 1941. None of my opponents have yet to seriously threaten Moscow, being content with Leningrad and the Ukraine. Thus, I have always been able to withdraw completely the industry in Leningrad and about half of the industry in the south because Moscow has been ignored.

When mud rolls around, I can sometimes afford to withdraw the Moscow industry. But it takes at least 10 full turns with the entire Soviet rail capacity to do so. My point is that if Leningrad and Moscow are threatened, it would be impossible for the Soviets to save much of the Moscow industry in 1941, much less anything in the south. Although it is popular to go for Leningrad to release the Finns, based on my abundant experience playing the Soviets against humans, in 1941 it is probably smarter for the axis player to go for Moscow and the Ukraine if you want to really hurt the Soviet side. In that case, no morale loss to the Soviet side is needed to insult him for the loss of Moscow because the Soviets will be in much bigger trouble than most imagine if the axis player is able to take it while also threatening Kharkov and/or Stalino.

[Klydon]

Not everything in Moscow needs to be moved out. (none of the MIG factories for example). Most of the important stuff is in East Moscow. I know what you are saying as far as there is a lot of stuff to move out of Moscow and there is. The issue is how far Moscow is from the front and what it takes (to the detriment of AGS) to get there. With over 1/2 of PG1 not available on turn 1 in this game, the Axis either strip units from PG2 to help destroy units in the south or face an absolute wall that AGS is going no where fast against. Given that AGS can not break the Russian defenses on its own, the Russians do not have to concern themselves with removing industry from the south even tho some of it is relatively close to the front.

There is industry in very few places on the road to Moscow and Minsk is doomed anyway. The other place likely to need to have industry removed immediately is Mogilev. After that, the only places west of Moscow that are even remotely close are Kaluga and Kalinin and you have to be on Moscow's doorstep anyway.

While it is true heat on Leningrad will cause the removal of industry there, not all of the Leningrad industry needs to be moved out either (the armored car plant for one). The huge one to get out of Leningrad is the KV factory. This is likely the second most important factory the Germans could get in 1941 after the Kharkov T34 plant.

In the south, immediate pressure can be brought to bear on many sites that contain industry and the way the rails are there, the Germans can cut them off a lot easier than Moscow. Including the Kiev hex row (Y81) and south and west of Kharkov, there are no less than 9 cities that have industry. Just a bit to the east of this, more comes into play with Kharkov, Stalino, etc.

The point is that if AGS goes with a slow/historical start, the Russians can evacuate industry AND also move quite a few troops around to meet the Axis attacks because of the lead time it takes for the Axis troops to get to Moscow. The Axis will also have to fight through tons of troops that show up in the Moscow area.  The best of both worlds in game right now seems to be putting as much pressure in the south as possible and also putting pressure on Leningrad. Leningrad does not generate enough troops on its own to stop a determined German offensive, so would eat rail cap for the troop movements to happen. The Russian must decide what gets priority. Either way, the Axis benefit from either a Russian defense that may not be getting re-enforced properly (Leningrad area) or risk losing industry.  Provided AGS is re-enforced and the Axis get off a big "shock and awe" attack that wipes out much of the Russian starting army in the south, then the south will eat some rail cap up to move enough troops up to make a stand on the river behind Kiev and/or to move troops into position to prevent the Germans from sweeping through the bend before the Russians get a chance to evacuate industry from there.

Not only is the industrial factor (as in not getting enough of it wiped out) in play in an attack against Moscow, but there are no other tangible benefits from capturing Moscow and frankly, there should be.

[Panama]

You don't have to move every piece of industry on the map. If you did that you would have more than was historical.

[RCHarmon]

I am learning from this thread and these last posts have me thinking. I want to learn more along these lines.

In the aars that I have been following I think Moscow was only threatened once. Is it possible to capture Moscow and prepare for the blizzard. Not preparing for the blizzard would end the game for the axis. Can Moscow be held in '41? Against a decent player I don't see how it can be held through the '41 blizzard. What exactly are the benefits in capturing Moscow and then having to abandon it?

You must be quick to capture Leningrad or else you must also threaten Moscow. To capture Moscow I am sure you must also threaten Leningrad.

Why are panzer units frozen on turn one in the south? Is it historical?

[Klydon]

There are a few conflicting reports for a couple of the units, but in general, the research that the team has done indicates they were not available for the initial push. In some ways, it is generous to have all of them available on turn 2. (LSSAH's first action was in the Crimea for example). Craptastic planning by the Germans to have 1st Panzer striking power reduced by so much, but then again it was third on the priority list for the initial invasion compared to the other two army groups. Following a historical open, it is no wonder the Germans struggled so badly in the early going in the south and the weather was not kind to them either. 

[von Beanie]

You shouldn't think abot holding Moscow unless the Russian army is broken. My point is that you need to threaten it, along with either Leningrad or the southern region, to force the Russian to worry about losing his industry in multiple locations. There's a huge amount of industry in the Moscow region, and if you can seriously threaten it along with another region simultaneously, the Russian side is bound to lose a bunch. Contrary to Klydon's recent analysis of industry targets, I've never had over 110,000 rail points available after late July, and that's not enough capacity to evacuate the critical industries from a large city like Moscow, or Kharkov and the nearby towns. Consider going for Moscow to kill off the industry, and then consider getting out of there for the winter.

[PeeDeeAitch]

In my most recent PBEM I have encircled Moscow on turn 16. Only 3m casualties, but I dashed and the industry is there. I will capture it and lose it in winter.

In my AAR I took it and moved beyond about 8-10 hexes. This gave me fall back room (and there are lots of lovely lvl 4 towns around) that I could hold on to. Remember, a German division in winter will lose CV and men, but if it doesn't fight, it will recover rapidly in spring. Those in contact with the Red Army or who have to retreat in combat will be the ones who suffer most.