Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 2:06:24 AM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 1055
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to PyleDriver)
Post #: 31
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 2:54:35 AM   
Muzrub


Posts: 1778
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.


Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 32
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 3:12:32 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4381
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
When the Soviets realized Moscow was threatened they ordered to build defensive lines west and EAST of Moscow

_____________________________

"Hang on, is that it...? Are we on the ring...?? Ready???" -- Nürburgring Seven Second Ring King

(in reply to Muzrub)
Post #: 33
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 4:09:21 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 34
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 5:07:43 AM   
Muzrub


Posts: 1778
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline
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.




< Message edited by Muzrub -- 4/9/2011 5:09:37 AM >


_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.


Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 35
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 8:54:20 AM   
saintsup

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: La Celle Saint-Clouud
Status: offline

quote:

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 ...

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 36
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 9:32:38 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to saintsup)
Post #: 37
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 9:52:49 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 1539
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
¯ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 38
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 12:35:40 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Muzrub)
Post #: 39
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 12:52:59 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 421
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 40
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 3:16:05 PM   
Muzrub


Posts: 1778
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

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.



With the issue at hand you chose that quote?

The fact is- the Soviet player loses nothing with the fall of Moscow, which should be the jewel in the crown.

_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.


Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 41
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 3:31:55 PM   
Lava


Posts: 1629
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub
The fact is- the Soviet player loses nothing with the fall of Moscow


Only for 19th century thinkers who believed "the Capital" was the center of the oppositions morale. Believe Napoleon found that out, as already stated.

Fact is, you lose lots of population and a central rail hub. In this game that hurts the Soviets a lot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub
Moscow, which should be the jewel in the crown.


The jewel in the crown is the destruction of the Soviet Army. As long as the Soviets have the means to resist, they will... as in all wars.

Fact of the matter is, the game system is based on strategic points. Those strategic points relate directly to the Soviets ability to resist. Take enough of them and you win.

Seems like a pretty good and authentic model to me; in keeping with modern day operational thought. Why fok with it?

(in reply to Muzrub)
Post #: 42
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 5:26:34 PM   
Angelo

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

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.


Unfortunately war games do foster stereotypes, since they use numerical values to represent the effectiveness of the troops. I'm not sure that this game is any worse than any other war game in using numerical values. It does show the Germans are super men (in the summer anyway) The Russians have endless masses and somehow become super men in the first winter etc... But I don't believe this was ment as a slight the any nation.

Personally, I took no offence.

One of the problems I have with the GC is that the victory condition is based only on the number of cities held. While this is a simple rule to impliment it does an injustice to the very real or imagined objectives that were fought for in the war.

So I would welcome having additional (or even optional) effects from the taking or holding historical objectives.

The GC is very much lacking in options and what if's.

I suspect that the freeing of the Finn's was looked at as a means of getting them more involved on the war and not as a reward for the Axis taking Leningrad.

< Message edited by Angelo -- 4/9/2011 5:36:54 PM >

(in reply to RCH)
Post #: 43
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 6:16:24 PM   
GFelz

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.


This. Review what Moscow has as of the start of the game. THAT is what makes Moscow a valuable target. Beyond that who cares? The Soviets didn't. Lets ask the peasants on the steppes how they felt about what life would be like if Moscow was fall. In game terms, the loss of Moscow is already significant. Very significant. In reality, German SS and Gestapo ensured Soviet fighting incentives and NKVD ensured everyone was in the fight regardless.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 44
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 7:01:39 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
I think someone already mentioned Moscow's prime importance was a transportation hub. That is proabably the best reason to attempt to occupy. We are talking about rail lines of military significance. The map has rail lines all over the place. Many of them couldn't carry enough traffic to be of military significance. Many authors mention this including Glantz whom everyone seems to consider the top authority.

Read this for information on the state of the Soviet rail system: 'The Soviet Economy and the Red Army', 1930-1945 Walter S. Dunn, Jr.

There's a good deal of information in there about a lot of things that would relate to this game.

(in reply to GFelz)
Post #: 45
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 7:33:22 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 421
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
All this stuff about a transport hub - in reality, look at the rail networks on the game map. In what way would the loss of this 'transport hub' impact the Soviet player's war effort? The Soviet player will still be able to rail his troops anywhere he needs to.

For all those who think Moscow is a sufficiently attractive prize to make it their #1 priority in the 41/42 campaigning seasons I'll say this - good luck. You're misreading the where the most important strategic location is in the game as it stands.   

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 46
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 10:22:21 PM   
Angelo

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

All this stuff about a transport hub - in reality, look at the rail networks on the game map. In what way would the loss of this 'transport hub' impact the Soviet player's war effort? The Soviet player will still be able to rail his troops anywhere he needs to.

For all those who think Moscow is a sufficiently attractive prize to make it their #1 priority in the 41/42 campaigning seasons I'll say this - good luck. You're misreading the where the most important strategic location is in the game as it stands.   


The loss of Moscow would have caused strategic movement delayes for sure. Unfortunately the strategic movement is very generous in WitE, for both sides, and the loss of Moscow does not effect rail movement in the game as much as it would have if the Axis did take Moscow. Of course there are other speculative effects to the loss of Moscow which the game could have modeled as well.

I would agree that Moscow is not the prime objective in 41 but would make it an objective for 42. Industrial and popularion centers are always good to take, eh!

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 47
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/9/2011 11:05:40 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
That is just it though. Moscow could be a industrial center (except a lot of its industry does not upgrade and there is no need to move it and anything else would be long gone in most cases given good Russian play) and sure it is a population center, except a ton of the Russian population will escape to other locations, even if encircled. Russian rail cap would take a big hit, but by the time Moscow might be captured, most of the campaign season for the Germans is done and a lot of the Russian industry that needs to be moved would have been moved already (or run over by the Axis). So while the hit on the Russian rail cap would be somewhat tough, they would still would not suffer a big enough drop to likely cause them major issues in terms of either troop movements or evacuating any remaining industry before bad weather set in.

So no, Moscow does not hold much of a goal in this game to either defend or take as the game currently sits.

(in reply to Angelo)
Post #: 48
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/10/2011 3:23:44 AM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

All this stuff about a transport hub - in reality, look at the rail networks on the game map. In what way would the loss of this 'transport hub' impact the Soviet player's war effort? The Soviet player will still be able to rail his troops anywhere he needs to.

For all those who think Moscow is a sufficiently attractive prize to make it their #1 priority in the 41/42 campaigning seasons I'll say this - good luck. You're misreading the where the most important strategic location is in the game as it stands.   


All those rail lines you see are not worth a crap. Most are single line with dirt or sand as ballast. Throw too much traffic on it and you end up with a pile of tinder and twisted metal where you once had a train. I love it.

Just leave the game exactly as it is. I really see nothing wrong with it. As a game it works just fine.

< Message edited by Panama -- 4/10/2011 3:24:38 AM >

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 49
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/10/2011 2:25:40 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
BTW, that rail that crosses the Volga from the east and goes into Stalingrad. It didn't exist. It stopped about two hexes east of Stalingrad at best.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 50
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/11/2011 3:32:39 AM   
FM WarB

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline
This is an interesting discussion.

Would Napoleon have won in 1812 if taking Moscow occurred with the destruction of Kutuzov's army?

Would the Germans have won in 1941 if they destroyed the Soviet army taking Moscow?

Neither did, but either might have if they did.

I suspect that with the rail net there and the industry, Moscow is valuable enough. The take Moscow and get an automatic victory dream is something for a 1941 scenario, not a Grand Campaign scenario. And if Guderian does not head south to put those Russians in the bag in Kiev, what about that army on his flank, heading for Moscow?

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 51
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/11/2011 5:35:46 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2829
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
The rail hub argument is meaningless because rail was needed to get stuff to/from the factories and to the front, if Moscow isn't the front anymore then it's useless as a rail hub. Moscow was the communications hub of Russia, everything when through Moscow, all orders for the Russia front, orders to factories in the east, orders for the entire country went through Moscow, communications to/from rest of the world came and went through Moscow. One has to remember in 1941 there was still vast areas of Russia that didn't even have electricity or phones in 1941. The phone and telegraph system even in 1941 was centralized, it started in Moscow and expanded there to the rest of Russia. If Moscow fell how long would it have been to re-establish that network of central command, control, & communications weeks, months? What happens to a central command and control government when the orders stop coming? Who would have given the orders if Stalin couldn't be reached. How would have the allies reacted if Moscow fell, would they still send aid or now see Russia as another lost cause? I believe the loss of Moscow would have had a major impact.

I think the loss of Command Points for a few turns and delays to reinforcements, production and delays to lend lease aid that's two to four weeks out should happen if Moscow falls, to simulate the time for the Russia Government to re-establish itself.



(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 52
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/11/2011 6:14:36 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 875
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


Except, as somebody has already pointed out, the Russian government had already relocated East. With no loss of effect.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

— President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 53
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/11/2011 1:38:43 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
Part of the government relocated, but the war was being run from Moscow. Big difference. 

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 54
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/11/2011 4:21:42 PM   
76mm


Posts: 2093
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Moscow
Status: offline
The 1812 analogies are getting kind of old...as others have pointed out, Moscow was not the capital on Russia in 1812. The loss of St. Petersburg might have been much more signficant.

I would suggest that Moscow in 1812 compares in importance to Leningrad in 1941--important, but not the capital.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 55
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/11/2011 4:45:09 PM   
mussey


Posts: 122
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline
Wow, I didn't realize I opened up a can of worms on this. I often defer my opinion to others in these forums since I've only begun playing WiTE last month. So now we reached a point in this discussion that we must use some conjecture about what the loss of Moscow could have meant.

I think loss of unit morale as suggested previously appears to be the most logical, and I would suggest a small tweak to something like this: If Moscow falls, all Soviet units lose ____ % morale, but each turn it gradually increases by _____% up to but not to exceed its original morale level. My thinking is that Moscow's loss would be huge immediately at the beginning, but every turn the Soviets remain in the game (and its army remains in the field) without Moscow its morale would slightly improve, until it reaches its original morale level. Loss of Admin Pts as suggested earlier too. Possible reimergence of a civil war?

Also, we must look to the possibility that other nations might want to take advantage of an 'appearant' crippled USSR and begin to settle old scores:
1) Japan into Vladivostok?
2) Turkey into Soviet Georgia, etc.?

These are just a few plausible ideas. But one thing needs to be mentioned. NOTHING good can happen for the USSR with the loss of Moscow, for it is more than just another city. It's the cultural hearth (along with Lenningrad) of communist Russia. It just seems logical that there would be some downside.


_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"


(in reply to mussey)
Post #: 56
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/11/2011 4:52:04 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
I think that some people consider that a rail road is enough to carry troops. They just forget that the train are needed too. That partly the reason why Moscow is a hub. This is where the train came from and can get most maintenance.

Nevertheless, there are very few rail road east of the Moscow/Stalingrad. There are always way to mitigate the loss, but not that much. I really believe that researching the impact of the loss of Moscow on the war effort is the best way to acheive a good result (though adittional VP for taking Moscow in 1941 is nice too).

As for the Finnish, it is really a question of "what if", we could as well play without them as the game is, as "the what if" that say they wouldn't have move more if leningrad felt is as good as anything else (they could even have negociate a separate peace, wining of course). This is defenitely not intended to make Leningrad worst more than Moscow, more of a side effect.




_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 57
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/12/2011 6:58:33 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2829
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Except, as somebody has already pointed out, the Russian government had already relocated East. With no loss of effect.


In 1812, not 1941!

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 58
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/14/2011 9:30:22 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
I followed this thread some week ago, but never had time to post. Finding myself with nothing in particular to do for a short while, I thought I just through in my two cents.

Although the views of what would have happened if Moscow was taken seems to stretch from nothing at all to possible surrender, what we can agree upon is that the fall of the Soviet capital would at least have a negative effect on the Russians (i.e. no one suggested that the Russians would actually gain from it).

Personally, I don’t very much like when there’s a definite effect for an event such as the one discussed. This is so much more true as this time there’s no exact precedent in history. That the fall of France leads to Vichy France is easy to accept because it happened. When it comes to Moscow, we have nothing to compare with and it is, in my world, therefore better if the effect is also one that neither player will know of, or can calculate with, beforehand.

If I were to design such an effect, I would have done something on the following lines: To begin with there has to be an absolute condition for the effect to trigger. I think I would opt for all hexes of Moscow taken and held for at least 4 turns. That way the Germans have to hold it in force for a while and the Soviet player gets a chance to recapture the capital.

Once the above condition has been met, and Moscow have in fact fallen, I would have the system create a random value between 30 and 70 (for example) to establish whether the loss of Moscow hits the Soviets mildly of more harshly. Once this value was established, it would be used for determining the final outcome of the effect. Just for the argument, let’s say that this random number was ”53”, placing it roughly in the middle between ”mild” and ”harsh”.

Moving on, there will now be a number of checks, each to establish whether any one of a number of concequences occur. Below is a suggestive list of possible concequences, all of them cumulative. The system now rolls a d100 for each of these concequences. If the roll is above 53, the system will pass the check and nothing happens. If it is below 52, the check fails and the concequence is triggered.

The Soviet ADM-level takes a -200 point hit (can turn into negative value).
The Soviet ADM-allocation is lowered by 25 % the next 12 turns.
The Soviet ADM-allocation is lowered by 10 % the next 50 turns.
The Soviet partisan recruitment rate is lowered by 15 % for the duration of the game.
The Soviet partisan recruitment rate is lowered by 60 % for the next year.
The Soviet rail capacity is reduced by 20 % for duration of game.
All Soviet ground units suffers an immediate 30 % increase in FAT.
In the turmoil of this Soviet catastrophy, a number of high-ranking Soviet leaders is permanently removed from the game.
The Western Allies stop all Lend Lease deliveries for 30 turns.
The Germans receive a one-time manpower boost from occupied Baltic and Russian cities.
The German rail capacity is raised by 5 %.

If we now assume that the first check passed, the second failed, the third passed and so on, the net effect of the fall of Moscow would thus be: ADM-allocation lowered by 25 % for 12 turns, partisan recruitment down 15 %, rail capacity down 20 %, some officers kicked and the Germans get a manpower boost. I’m sure that you can come up with many more plausible concequences to check.

The nice thing with a system like this, would be that neither the German nor the Russian player will have any knowledge what the actual outcome will be. They will both be looking at the Soviet capital with different eyes than they are with the present solution, however, and the game will be rather more interesting and exciting. At least I think it would.


< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 4/14/2011 9:33:54 PM >

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 59
RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? - 4/14/2011 10:30:39 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4923
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.



Even though I am a Soviet fanboy I would absolutely support these rules.

In fact I did surrender my game to Emir because he took LG and Moscow. I felt whatever game says is moot, I simply feel he deserves a victory there (besides, my forces were in tatters anyway).

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Morale loss if Moscow falls? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117