Morale loss if Moscow falls?

[mussey]

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

[Klydon]

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]

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]

YES!

[ComradeP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[squatter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

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]

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]

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.