re major country morale after capiatl is siezed

[arado234]

I think that if germany took and held moscow in 1941 it would have had a big effect on russia as a whole.Not to mention german morale.Moscow was a major communications centre plus it had alot of important factories.I really think it should be factored into the next patch.

[Blashy]

Russia has a history of abandoning their capital.

They did have plans to do so again vs. Germany.

The factories would most likely have been dismantled and rebuilt just like they did with a bunch of industrial centers east of Moscow.

The High Command would easily have had some type of propaganda ready to make it look like a good thing.

The would it or would it not is too uncertain to put it either way and so I like it as it is, not affecting it. And it affects the player... he looses 20mpps!

[Guest Mike]

Um...actually no, Russia has no history of abandoning its capital at all. It has, AFAIK, never done so.

Moscow was not the capital in 1812 - St Petersburg was.

[Retributar]

You sure know your 'History', "Stalin's Organist!!!".

3-Cheer's!!!.

[Liam]

Ironically... I was quickreading some History, the Russian referred to the war with Napoleon as the "Great Patriotic war of 1812" some "the War of 1812!" Intrigueing, as WW2 is by Russians the Great Patriotic War.

Moscow was not the Capitol, Peter the Great had moved it to St. Petersburg to make it a more Naval and more Westernized Nation the previous century. I suppose this was of great consequence during the war? Moscow was burnt to the ground, completely destroyed during Napoleon's capture of it! Napoleon lost more men to attrittion this I know by fact and history than he did to the Russian Army. This is somewhat an issue with the German Army. Low Supply means the effective fighting force of the Germans and their morale is hindered as well... they do not go into battle at supply 8 or 9 often, where they might in France or other Theatres. They go in with 6 or 7 at times, not ideal! Often losing Supplies to Partisans getting scorthed Earth... As in history, Napoleon's Ally's were not reliable, nor were Germany's...

As of 1812 the largest Invasion force in European History had been assembled to invade Russia by France.

Ultimately as a bit of Irony on top of it all, there is good evidence the defeat of Napoleon lead to the Emergence of Germany from a state to a Nation.

[Blashy]

Capital in name, but Moscow was their "central" city and they let it go for tactical reasons.

Napoleon was after Moscow.

And you'll see that it was not the only time in history their capitals were taken and they fought back, eventually prevailing.

They are a though people them Russians.

Anyways, the main point is that it is plain specualtion if it would have been a bad thing or turned around as a propaganda against Germany or something else. Too many what ifs.

L

[Retributar]

Napoleone lost most of his soldiers due to the Severe Russian Winter, not to combat!.

I believe that it was the coldest Winter in something like 50 Year's!. This same freak 'Coldest Winter' scenario also happened to Adolf Hitler!.

[Liam]

Interesting enough, Hitler had planned OP Barbarossa a bit earlier, but he was delayed in Greece by Mussolini's needing bailing out there. I wonder what a couple months more of decent weather would've bought the Germans!

Originally posted by Retributar:

Napoleone lost most of his soldiers due to the Severe Russian Winter, not to combat!.

I believe that it was the coldest Winter in something like 50 Year's!. This same freak 'Coldest Winter' scenario also happened to Adolf Hitler!.

[Guest Mike]

I can't think of another time the Russian lost their capital to a foreign invader without also losing teh war. Mostly they "lost" it to Polish supported pretenders and hte like IIRC - and that only once or twice.

Napoleon had lost 80% of his army before he retreated from Moscow - he hentered Russian with 500,000, but only 100,000 left Moscow.

Of the rest many were in garrisons and side theatres, of whom about 100,000 made it home OK - mainly Poles, Prussians, Austrians and otehr Germans. He lost perhaps 40,000 at Borodina and there were many other actions.

the horrors of het winter were mainly visited upon the remnants of the Grande Armee, which was a minority of the troops involved in hte total invasion by that time.

[Iron Ranger]

Aside from the loss of Moscow as a rail center (almost all rail came to and was redirected from Moscow in central USSR) I think the over all defeat of it would little be noticed. And as pointed out I'm sure they had a prapaganda program ready to say that its a good thing Moscow is now in german hands.

[hellraiser]

The loss of Moscow would probably have dealt a serious blow to Stalin's iron grip of the country.

Russian morale would have gone down for sure, at least for a certain period. No propaganda program can sweeten the pill - the 'stand fast' order issued for defending Moscow as well as several hundreds (thousands) of trenches built by the civilian population were way too visible. Every russian knew Moscow HAD to be defended.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I think there should be a morale drop when a major nation looses its Capital... as well a morale gain for the conquering side.. not as much percentage as in case of surrender, but a part of it.

In that particular case:

- Moscow was close to be abandoned in late 41.. the industrial capacity would have been almost unhurt, but there would be a severe moral blow.. what helped the Russain indeed was the fact that they noticed the german war machine wasn`t unstoppable. In fact they started a major counteroffensive in the south as well which was stopped by Manstein in Spring 42.. this lead to the famous "Fall Blau".

- Germany`s morale took a severe blow in Winter 41/42.. they noticed that the blitzkrieg had failed and they will face a war of attrition. On german Wikipedia I read that after the lost Battle of Moscow even Hitler mentioned to his High Command that the war is almost impossible to win.. this is why he fired von Brauchitsch.

Basically I don`t want to say that Germany would have won the war by taking Moscow, but the whole picture would have been completely different.. by taking Moscow and destroying the defending forces, Germany would have had more forces to conduct "Fall Blau" in early Summer 42... or more tanks to support the Afrika Korps.. think for yourself what the consequence could have been.

[Blashy]

No one can know for certain what would have occured.

And since the game does not give USSR their rightfull due in production holding Moscow is X times more difficult and it falls most of the time.

While in WW2 Russia already had equal forces to Germany on the field, that's equal corps, armies, tanks, AFs, paratroopers and maybe a couple of bombers or rockets. That gave them a significant force to hold Moscow and do an offensive somewhere else. You'll NEVER see that realism in the default campaign so you can't really punish Russia for loosing the capital when it is already severly punished in production capacity.

[Guest Mike]

In December 1941 the German central front area outnumbered Russians by a few hundred thousand IIRC - the Russians had 1.1 million, the Germans 1.5?? I've got some figures somewhere that mention this specifically but not here at work.

the only thing that stopped the Germans was supply IMO....or more accurately lack of it - due to distance and weather.

[K Jonsson]

Napoleon in Russia... For those of you who haven't seen it, here is maybe the worlds best diagram ever:

http://www.ddg.com/LIS/InfoDesignF96/Kelvin/Napoleon/map.html

/Kristian

[Guest Mike]

Yep - I first saw it in a year 1 stats lecture as an example of clear and concise visual representation!!

[jon_j_rambo]

Actually, this "Capital Captured" rules makes no sense. If Washington D.C. was taken, it would actually boast morale in the USA. We walk to a different beat of the drum.

[waltero]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Capital in name, but Moscow was their "central" city and they let it go for tactical reasons.

Napoleon was after Moscow.

And you'll see that it was not the only time in history their capitals were taken and they fought back, eventually prevailing.

They are a though people them Russians.

Anyways, the main point is that it is plain specualtion if it would have been a bad thing or turned around as a propaganda against Germany or something else. Too many what ifs.

L

Oddly enough, I do not think Napoleon was ever 'after' Moscow.

His aim was to have them beat long before even thinking of trekking all the way to Moscow.

Just so happens that the Russians wanted to avoid battle and kept falling back making Napoleon dependent on long supply lines.

He marched into the Capital (spiritual capital of Russia) because he thought it would be a good place to rest his troops.

Once in Moscow he thought Russia would surrender. While entering into Russia he never thought, if I could only get to moscow this would be all over.

Meaning he had no expectation of marching to moscow.

[hellraiser]

Russia is protected by its own size, first of all.

One reason of the failure of the blitzkrieg.

But the times of Napoleon were so politically different than the WW2 era.

During the '41 campaign, IMHO the capture of Moscow would have dealt a crippling blow not necessarily to 'Russia' but to the communist regime in the first place. Think that russians hated their leaders and regime, they were kept under a heavy boot- gulags, killings, all the cool stuff that comes along with a dictatorship.

With the 'stand fast' order issued by Stalin after the famous Politburo meeting, where unanimously, the members agreed to defend Moscow, it was very clear for all russians: if Moscow fell, Stalin's credibility as well as the communist party's credibility would have gone down. In a country so racially mixed, a lot of nations kept together, sometimes against common sense, the civil revolt can errupt without warning especially if it is fuelled by an external factor (Germany).

Think that Stalin was aware of this sensitive issue : the mobilization of the russians came after he told the people that they were fighting for 'Mother Russia' not for the communist regime - fuelling their patriotic feelings instead of strenghtening their 'political' support.

Strategically, the capture of Moscow would have severed the link between the russian fronts plus would have destroyed a lot of factories, vital for the russian war effort - not everything was dismantled and moved to Urals...

Hitler's view about the strategy to be employed vs Russia was very correct: do not attempt to conquer acre after acre but instead go for the vital objectives in a speedy thrust, destroying russia's neural centers. But this was only a nice theory - General Oberst Halder's plan was to advance on 3 directions, picking the final objectives later, after assessing the progress of each offensive effort.

Thinking to blitz Russia was also a big mistake - Russia cannot be blitzed because of its size - some more logistic build up would have been necessary in order to support the main offensive actions towards the desired objectives.

Going for the concentration of red troops (the famous encirclement battles) instead of pushing to the vital objectives, switching armoured units from one direction to another were also very bad decisions.

IMO, with Leningrad and Moscow conquered before 1942, the situation in Russia could have been extremely complicated. With the communist regime shaken, mutiny all over the place, morale of red troops at its lowest level, strong support of locals (especially ukrainians, baltic people, even russians)...very difficult to tell a clear outcome especially when you think that the western allies were just starting mobilizing.

[TaoJah]

IMHO each country should get a moral hit when their capital falls. Russia, but also Germany and the UK.

Imagine what an impact on the UK morale it would have if there were pictures of Germans swastikas hanging down Big Ben...

It's not for nothing that Hitler had his picture taken while standing on the Seine with the Eifel tower in the background : symbols like these matter in real wars.

So they should matter in the game too.

[Liam]

The Region of Moscow would be more vital than 20 MPPs. I am not certian this would spell the end of Stalinism. Nor the Communist party, it's grip was stronger than that. Your assessment of the war in Russia is quite correct, few knew how to truly approach it. Hitler was obsessed with objectives that truly didn't benefit him. I see that the coal in the Ukraine was taken by Germany, Hitler thought it vital, it didn't hinder Soviet Coal production much at all. The point you mention, Hitler switching goals from Moscow to the South, which if taken may have meant more for the morale of the Nazis than for the Russians, who were later in the game More in Need IMO. In 1942, Stalingrad and the Caucasus were assualted, an essential Army group split in two objectives against a numerically superior foe, a blunder. Ultimately none of the Caucasus Oil could be converted to much use for the Germans, Hitler again meddled blundered. Meanwhile Leningrad and Moscow front held firm due to the allocation of German troops to other Fronts. These regions valuable? Perhaps in terms of European Russian Manpower, I would say yes. That lost, would cost the Russians more conscripting power however the Germans were doing no good making enemies of the Russian people to the extend they had. Ultimately short of killing 75% of them, the Germans could not fight both the Russian people and the Russian Army.

Originally posted by hellraiser:

Russia is protected by its own size, first of all.

One reason of the failure of the blitzkrieg.

But the times of Napoleon were so politically different than the WW2 era.

During the '41 campaign, IMHO the capture of Moscow would have dealt a crippling blow not necessarily to 'Russia' but to the communist regime in the first place. Think that russians hated their leaders and regime, they were kept under a heavy boot- gulags, killings, all the cool stuff that comes along with a dictatorship.

With the 'stand fast' order issued by Stalin after the famous Politburo meeting, where unanimously, the members agreed to defend Moscow, it was very clear for all russians: if Moscow fell, Stalin's credibility as well as the communist party's credibility would have gone down. In a country so racially mixed, a lot of nations kept together, sometimes against common sense, the civil revolt can errupt without warning especially if it is fuelled by an external factor (Germany).

Think that Stalin was aware of this sensitive issue : the mobilization of the russians came after he told the people that they were fighting for 'Mother Russia' not for the communist regime - fuelling their patriotic feelings instead of strenghtening their 'political' support.

Strategically, the capture of Moscow would have severed the link between the russian fronts plus would have destroyed a lot of factories, vital for the russian war effort - not everything was dismantled and moved to Urals...

Hitler's view about the strategy to be employed vs Russia was very correct: do not attempt to conquer acre after acre but instead go for the vital objectives in a speedy thrust, destroying russia's neural centers. But this was only a nice theory - General Oberst Halder's plan was to advance on 3 directions, picking the final objectives later, after assessing the progress of each offensive effort.

Thinking to blitz Russia was also a big mistake - Russia cannot be blitzed because of its size - some more logistic build up would have been necessary in order to support the main offensive actions towards the desired objectives.

Going for the concentration of red troops (the famous encirclement battles) instead of pushing to the vital objectives, switching armoured units from one direction to another were also very bad decisions.

IMO, with Leningrad and Moscow conquered before 1942, the situation in Russia could have been extremely complicated. With the communist regime shaken, mutiny all over the place, morale of red troops at its lowest level, strong support of locals (especially ukrainians, baltic people, even russians)...very difficult to tell a clear outcome especially when you think that the western allies were just starting mobilizing.

[Guest Mike]

One of hte problems is that in SC2 there is no rail/transport net, so a lot of the importance of Moscow as a transport hub isn't there - it is "just" another city for production purposes.

contrast that with other high level games that do represent railroads (in particular) and you get a different emphasis.

[Blashy]

BUT! If you play with Railheads on, it does make it more important, it makes every city more important.

Makes the game have some tactical element, quite fun.

[Guest Mike]

2 things wrong with railheads - firstly it makes every city as important- which should not be the case, and secondly to do that you have to get into the editor IIRC - why isn't it a option button??!!

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Blashy suggested "And it affects the player... he looses 20mpps!" ... if Moscow is taken.

Is this true? Moscow is lost, but Stalingrad is the new capital. And so doesn't Stalingrad's MPPs go from 10 to 20?

Therefore if Moscow is taken the cost to Russia is only 10 per turn?