Heavy industry matters. Not only that, but if you compare Soviet production figures starting 41 GC #s with the 43 Campaign #s, you can easily see why as Soviet player you'll never match the latter figures by playing the 41 GC by PBEM against a competent Axis player. And that has ramifications.
The thing so many people have focused on for so long when it comes to factory evacuations is this one line from section 126.96.36.199 in the WiTE manual.
To maintain historical production figures the Soviet player needs to move at least half of the capacity of the factories being relocated.
Now I don't know who wrote that, but I wish they would explain the following:
Starting production figures '41-'45 GC game
236 Heavy Industry
Starting production figures '43-'45 GC (Kursk) and net loss from '41 scenario
212 Heavy Industry (-24)
335 Arms (-35)
135 Vehicles (-5)
If that represents what the Soviets lost from June 41 to July 43, that isn't 50% of anything historically assuming the two scenario #s are portraying accurate production figures.
More details on evacuations. I am going to start with arms. There are 224 arms points generally at risk from a line Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov. Below is a list I compiled that shows where 200 are. The other 24 not shown are 4 at Minsk and 20 at Moscow because at the time I wrote this, I thought Moscow was relatively safe. I now mention that in here because with the fort nerf, Moscow is in as much danger of capture as anywhere in 1941.
224 factories are at risk. Lose the 35 which is the difference between the scenarios. That leaves 189 to be evacuated if you are going to have the same # of factories as the start of the Kursk scenario. Multiply that number by 6,000 railcap evacuation cost and you get 1,134,000.
On to vehicles. These cities have the following production and are at risk. North Moscow, West Moscow, and Moscow 20. Kharkov 20. Leningrad 6, Stalino 5. The scenario differences was 5 and that leaves 46 to go. Multiply by 6,000 railcap again and that's 276,000.
Now heavy industry. Here is a good portion of the factories at risk in 1941
Krivoi Rog 3
That's 79. Subtract the 24 as the difference in the scenarios and you get 55. Multiply by 10,000 and get 550,000.
Totals then are:
heavy industry 550,000
GRAND TOTAL: 1,960,000 railcap required to evacuate factories to have the same #s at the start of the '43 scenario.
And that's not including a single tank, armored car, or airplane factory going east.
Ok. What is the available Soviet railcap for turns 2-16 which represents the time when the Axis summer campaign lasts? (If you want to argue maybe Moscow holds long enough until mud arrives, be my guest.) Results will vary but in my game against Pelton that I featured in an AAR, it was about 1.65 million. It peaked turn 4 at 144,500 and averaged 112,500.
The numbers say then that you don't have enough railcap to move all of what the '43 scenario would assume you would historically have started with. You're 300k short of railcap without moving a single soldier to the front.
My point: If the 1943 scenario truely represents what Soviet industry was delivering to arm and equip that same historical Red Army, in the 41 GC you'll never meet those same production figures while you try to build and support a similar army which I presume gets you to Berlin in May 1945 if the Axis has similar historical troop #s. It means if you build the 150 rifle corps army Flavius talks about, it will have less supplies and ammunition then what it had historically. 150 rifle corps = 450 divisions. The '43 scenario actually has 447 Soviet rifle division equivalents by the way. That in turn with less heavy industry means higher fatigue and lower MPs in the Red Army units. It means the Axis can follow up a successful summer 42 campaign with a winter one for a while at least against fatigued Soviet rifle divisions. It means fewer Soviet deliberate attacks against the Axis over the long term. If you build a smaller Red Army with better supply... well the Soviet player won't get to Berlin any sooner.
< Message edited by M60A3TTS -- 7/6/2012 6:32:07 AM >