Morale loss if Moscow falls?

[Klydon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/2 ... nian-army/

[Aditia]

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]

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

[IdahoNYer]

What I don't understand in the design is that there are no rules for a Soviet collapse (morale, economic or political) for a loss of Moscow, but there is the release of the Finns if Leningrad falls....both are conjecture since neither happened. There are those who look at Stalin's decision to remain in Moscow as a turning point in October - what if he left? What if Moscow fell and the Stalin lost his grip on power?

What I would love to see, but its probably beyond the game's capability is an optional rule to where there is no certainty that the Finns are released if Leningrad falls, but if Moscow falls there is a possibility of some type of Soviet collapse as well. Even a remote chance (5-10% or less maybe) of an endgame representing a new regime coming to terms with Germany ala 1918.

This would really give the Germans incentive to drive to take Moscow and add some interesting variables to the campaign.

[Muzrub]

In my personal opinion if Moscow had fallen the count down on Stalin's regime would have started ticking...

Game wise- and historically the fall of Moscow should effect the moral of the Red Army- if the troops rose to the challenge to defend the capital, then surely a defeat would have been absolutely devastating?

[TulliusDetritus]

When the Soviets realized Moscow was threatened they ordered to build defensive lines west and EAST of Moscow [;)]

[Panama]

By the time the Germans reached Moscow a collapse was no longer going to happen. That would have taken place sometime during the summer. I'm not really sure that there would have been a morale hit either. If there were it wouldn't have been much. Anyway, the Germans would have either been driven out or encircled and starved out during the winter. They just did not have the manpower to take Moscow house by house, block by block. That's what they would have had to do. It would have been Stalingrad a year early.

[Muzrub]

If Moscow was not that important to morale why didn't Stalin just leave then? Why march the troops past the Kremlin while deceiving the troops that Lenin's body was still there?


To actually have taken Moscow the Germans would have had to have changed their battle plan, have organised themselves for a winter war. Not to mention to win the war they would have had to win the hearts and minds of the Russian people.
Of course none of that happened...

Game wise- even with the historical strictness imposed on it, the game allows the German player to take Moscow, and Leningrad in '41. It also allows the player to keep on pushing the Soviets back in '42.
In that case the game should take a leap of faith and penalise the Soviets for losing their capital.

Otherwise lets retreat back to Gorki and extend the German lines of Comm- maybe then we'll smash 'em back in '44? The Soviet player needs a focal point, and a penalty.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

What I don't understand in the design is that there are no rules for a Soviet collapse (morale, economic or political) for a loss of Moscow, but there is the release of the Finns if Leningrad falls....both are conjecture since neither happened. There are those who look at Stalin's decision to remain in Moscow as a turning point in October - what if he left? What if Moscow fell and the Stalin lost his grip on power?

What I would love to see, but its probably beyond the game's capability is an optional rule to where there is no certainty that the Finns are released if Leningrad falls, but if Moscow falls there is a possibility of some type of Soviet collapse as well. Even a remote chance (5-10% or less maybe) of an endgame representing a new regime coming to terms with Germany ala 1918.

This would really give the Germans incentive to drive to take Moscow and add some interesting variables to the campaign.

I'm not an history specialist enough to conjecture on the probability and conditions of a collapse but such a rule or option would be very good gameplay wise.

Can easily be an houserule though ...

[Skanvak]

Just my opinion on the subject :

_ Moral in this game is not moral but more experience or training. So losing Moscow should not affect moral in the game.

_ Moscow is central to Russia railroad, production and such (look at the number of rail road). I think therefre to stay in line with plausible guess, that the impact on production, rail road capacity and administration point (this could recover with time but not totally) should be important. May be the game already model that in someway that we don't realize the impact. At one point there is nothing to the east, and lack of proper railroad network will damage the war effort beyong reckognition. Even if it may recover with time, I don't see how the USSR can fight from the Urals alone, and once Moscow (well you have to had all other major western russia cities) has fallen this is pretty much the case.

[Mehring]

What do the Russians actually lose along with the Moscow hexes?

Apart from the variable of movable factories, do they not lose rail capacity? And the rail hub is lost, making communication along the entire front considerably more difficult for the Russians. Also a large amount of manpower along with victory points. That's several straws on Stalin's back.

Modeling morale drops or any fixed abstraction of a supposed effect is tricky. Losses can galvanise morale as often as destroy it, depending on other factors. Without a very sophisticated model which accounts for such variables, making the effect of gains and losses unpredictable, the game becomes a mechanical bore. Best left alone till it can be done well.

As for insults to the Rumanians, should the game designers really be pandering to the vanity of people who should be, but clearly aren't ashamed of their complicity in a criminal war and all that it involved? Odessa massacre anyone? The Rumanians are well enough modelled in my view.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

If Moscow was not that important to morale why didn't Stalin just leave then? Why march the troops past the Kremlin while deceiving the troops that Lenin's body was still there?

Stalin didn't willingly give up an inch of Soviet land.

[squatter]

The matter at hand is not speculation about what might or might not have actually happened had Moscow fallen, it's what's best for the game, within a plausable framework.
 
Currently, losing Moscow is more of a blow to the Soviet player's ego than it is to his war effort. Moscow should obviously be the biggest prize of all. Yet in game terms Leningrad is. This needs to change.