@Karl7:

Returning to “If Moscow fell…”

I am a big reader of the eastern front, so I like to think I have some knowledge on this.

I think if Moscow fell, the Soviet Union would have been thrown into major disarray.  Looking at the transport maps of Russia, Moscow was the major hub.  Supplying and reinforcing much of the front would have become exponentially harder. Leningrad and the entire north/western sector would have been cutoff and then withered and surrendered.  The south had the Volga some better rail-links directly eastward, but not much.

Yes, Stalin would have fallen further back and probably continued fighting, but further major fighting would have likely only been possible on the Moscow-Gorky Axis.  This would have favored the Germans going on the defensive and letting the remnant Russians ram their heads into the wall.

Finally, Stalin would have had to have faced the political implications of losing the capitol.  The Soviet government wasn’t entirely monolithic, and I could imagine creeping dissent starting to bubble up, especially from the southern and eastern republics (which did happen during the real war, although the dissenters were brutally suppressed).

So, I think capturing Moscow would have lead to an eventual victory in the east.  It wouldn’t have been immediate, but it would have gutted the USSR’s ability to continue fighting regardless of their continued build up.

(Of course I say that acknowledging the possibility Hitler, upon victory, would have stupidly withdrawn forces for other adventures leaving the door open for a Russian resurgence.  Pacifying and effectively securing the east would have taken many years.)

Thank you for the input. This is not my area of expertise.
“Pacifying and effectively securing the east would have taken many years.” Adding to this, unlike Lenningrad, which was just under siege for years, the Germans attempted to actually CAPTURE Stalingrad. Heavy fighting in an urbanized industrial stronghold, where the defenders used the rubble to further their defense. To take Moscow seems an even bigger nightmare. House-to-house fighting, and snipers and booby-traps. Lets say the Germans did capture it…holding this would be a nightmare I can imagine. The area is so vast around the city, the Russians could counterattack supply lines leaving the Germans besieged in an unfriendly city.

The amount of time needed to secure and pacify the area would require a huge garrisons and time for the Russians to work out their own supply lines from their new center of operations. Again, this isn’t my area of expertise, but I’m just throwing things out there.

I said Moscow at the end just as an example. But this isn’t about Moscow, but about the difficulties of taking over an industrialized city. A metropolitan capitol. The hardened determination of it’s citizens. Not about helping Russia’s game.

But no change in defense is cool. Just thought I would bring it up. It’s realistic but probably complicates game play.

@Narvik:

Well, you guys think like western people living in 2017. You are far away from the reasoning the Japanese leaders did between 1930 and 1945. Yes, of course there were a tiny group of officers in the Army that had a dream to occupy Moscow, but they were not in power. The main objective of Japan back in 1930 was to rule the Pacific Ocean and South East Asia mainland. And nothing more. So no matter what happened in Europe, Japan would never attack Russia.

Treaties and Pacts are not worth the paper they are written on so lets keep that out. Japan was too dependent on Russia to attack it. Also, the Japanese people did not love the idea of being lesser worth of the Arians, should Hitler win. After 1937, USA, UK and the Dutch run a blockade against Japan. Only Russia would support Japan, and give them supply and resources. The border clash between Japan and Russia in 1939 was bad, but it was also a mistake, and the trade continued. Everybody believed that Germany would take Moscow in 1941, and Japan used that opportunity to attack USA and UK. Japan would not attack Russia, even when Hitler urged them to. Even if Germany had captured Moscow, Stalingrad, and the Archangel Aztrakehan line, even then I doubt that Japan would have joined the attack on Russia. In fact, Japan let the Lend Lease from USA to Russia be shipped from Alaska to Vladivostok, without stopping it. And the US convoys sailed unprotected through the straits on Japan mainland, it would not have been difficult to close the strait. So I guess Japan was not a nice Ally to Germany, in fact they backstabbed them. Severe. It was not in Japans interest with a weak Russia and strong racist Hitler that ruled the world, considering Hitlers distaste for colored people, like the Japanese.

Not sure what you mean by “You guys” but I said from the beginning there would be no Japanese attack against the Soviet Union. There was a debate about going north or south…not both. Japan opted for south. Japan simply wasn’t strong enough to attack the Soviet Union, even if it wanted to.

But it was in Japan’s interest for a weakened Russia. That is absolute. Germany, like Japan, didn’t want to take over the world, but to carve out their little piece of it. Had Germany took Moscow, the Soviet Union would have still been in the fight, which was the premise for the discussion. Had Germany beat the Soviet Union enough to seek a separate peace and end the war on that front, Hitlers racist policies wouldn’t have reached to other side of the world.

But we are in agreement Japan did not entertain any real debate about attacking the Soviet Union once they were committed with striking south.

Been thinking something…perhaps it’s been discussed before…

If your capitol is under siege, I was thinking infantry get a defensive boost to 3. Only infantry units. Reason is its sort of a Last Stand. Not fighting on the battlefield, but in the city. House to house fighting, civilian units thrown up to form a defense, dig ditches, erect barricades. If you study the siege of Stalingrad, the defenders used the rubble from destroyed buildings from the attackers artillery and air assaults to increase their defensive positions on the ground. The attackers weren’t fighting just the army. You’re handing out rifles to women and elderly.

Just the capitol. Just infantry. Should the defense be increased?

Moscow might not ever fall  :-)

Moderator’s edit: Added tag [Global 1940] to title

@Caesar:

You can go look it up if you don’t believe me.

A lot of people need to understand that when Japan surrendered, it still had a massive army. Japan did have plans to invade USSR and Mongolia if Stalingrad was captured and the reason for this was because the Japanese Army did not want to commit to a new front if Germany couldn’t make it easy on them and Japan assumed that Stalin would defeat the west over east. The Japanese navy did not take the Soviet Pacific Fleet serious enough to be a threat to them and the lacked the ships to launch an invasion so the best they could do is harass Japanese ports. German plans for eastern USSR was non existent because there is nothing of worth other than coil and timber to invade for, something that Japan didn’t care because their entire objective was extending their empire for lands so it made sense to them. Captured Moscow may of made Japan invade sooner but their plan clearly stated that Germany had to have firm control of Stalingrad before the Army would even think about invading USSR.

Oh I’m not denying they had plans. I’m merely giving my opinion–that’s it’s doubtful they would go through with it–and then I just provided my arguments.

Prior to deciding to attacking the U.S. and going south to get the oil, there was much debate in Japan about where to fight: “Strike South” to get the oil, which would mean attacking the U.S. too; or “Strike North” by invading the Soviet Far East. They couldn’t do both. They opted for striking south, as they had a year left of oil reserves. Plus, the Japanese army is just no match for the superior Soviet troops, and the Siberian divisions were Russians best troops in the country.

Now, the Japanese attacked when it did(Dec 1941) because the Germans were knocking on Moscow’s door. However, any potential plan to invade the Soviet Union IF Stalingrad had been captured by the Germans in 1942 was scuttled because in June of 1942 the U.S. had destroyed half of the entire Imperial Japanese Navy in a single blow. The Japanese army was ALREADY committed to the south, and even the crack Kwangtung Army was no match for the Soviet mech and arm. The Soviets–and their Mongolian allies–spanked the Japanese already.

So I’m not saying there was no plans, but I’m saying that had they invaded the Soviet Union after ALREADY being at war with the U.S.–and the U.S. ALREADY decimated their fleet just 6 months into the war–that invading the Soviet Union would have brought about Japan’s destruction sooner. This is simply my opinion of course.

Regarding Japan’s huge army at the end of the war, the Soviets destroyed what was on the continent. Aug 6th 1945 the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima…still no surrender. Aug 9th the Soviets violated the Neutrality Pact and invaded Manchuria, destroying Japan’s crack Kwangtung army of almost 1 million strong. Also Aug 9th the U.S. drops another bomb on Nagasaki. Japan didn’t surrender until the 15th, at a time when Russian troops mopped up the continent and planned an invasion of Japan’s northernmost island.

A close examination might suggest it was the Soviets who finished off the Japanese, and not the American’s.

@Caesar:

Knowing Stalin’s crazy ass, that answer is simple. He would allow the USSR to burn around him before any flag could secure it and we have evidence proving this. Japan laid plans to invade eastern USSR if Stalingrad was captured, would they launch it if Moscow fell?

It’s doubtful Japan would attack the Soviet Union. Those plans would have been scuttled because 2 months before the Battle of Stalingrad the U.S. Navy destroyed half of the IJN, losing 4 large fleet carriers in a single battle. With the U.S. taking the offensive in the Pacific, and the Imperial Japanese Army tied up all over the place: 27 divisions bogged down in China; and armies in Burma, Thailand, Philippines, Malaya, Dutch East Indies…not to mention the superior Soviet army only needs to defend the Trans-Siberian Railway, and furthermore the Mongols, who know intimately how the Japanese fight because they allied with the Soviets in giving the Japanese Army a beatdown just a couple years prior.

The Japanese would have been defeated sooner if they would have invaded the Soviet Far East. I’m sure Stalin wouldn’t mind if U.S. bombers hit Japan itself from Soviet Far East airbases.

@Charles:

Savage,
The idea of forcing the Axis to hold their objectives for a few turns sounds perfect in respect to gameplay, history, and balance.  The question is how many turns?

The Allies’(technically, it was ONLY FDR who wanted this) doctrine of Unconditional Surrender–or face annihilation–was because the Allies already knew they were going to win. Summer of 1942 the U.S. Navy was the largest and most powerful in the pacific. Just 6 months after Pearl Harbor the U.S. was stronger than Japan in the Pacific with navy and air. By December of 1942 Germany’s last strategic initiative on the Eastern Front would wind to a halt due to it’s second Russian Winter in a row(which was Germany’s last). At this point Germany could not recover it’s losses and Japan was even in worse shape. The following month(Jan. 1943) we have the Unconditional Surrender policy. Despite having 2.5 years left of hard fighting, the outcome was NEVER in question at this point. The Allies will impose their will even if the Axis countries face total annihilation–and the Allies knew they could do it…

The difficulty lies in the Axis victory. The game starts 1940, 2 years before knowing for sure the outcome, so the Allies aren’t so bold at this point. They know the Axis could win. So at what point do the Allies say they can’t defeat the Axis and agree to terms? There comes a time when they realize they just can’t defeat this Axis Machine, even if London and Washington are safe. At what point do the Allies concede? In reality it would be when they realize that the Axis just can’t be stopped. For gaming purposes, I have the least amount of actual playing time than anyone here, but to lose because someone wasn’t paying attention and got out of position, when they still have the capacity for victory…

We could say 3 turns. Definately not less than 3

1. The sheer size of the Soviet Union is immense.
2. Stalin had ordered the relocation of industry eastward and the evacuation of people at the beginning of Barbarossa. Urals, western Siberia, Central Asia/Kazakhstan…Stalin was preparing to keep fighting if Moscow fell to the Germans.
3. Although the Red Army wasn’t a match head-to-head with the wehrmacht, it was very skilled at the counter-attack.
4. The supply lines would have been indefensible beyond Moscow, and the drain on manpower and material too high for the wehrmacht to continue chasing the Red Army further into Russia.

Although it would have been a huge psychological(among other things) blow to lose the capitol, would the Soviets continue their war if Moscow fell?
If Stalin accepted terms of peace after the fall of Moscow, then Germany’s Eastern Front would have been settled. Germany would only need to consolidate and fortify the east while it turns west…

But if the Red Army continued the war, as it was capable of doing…

So, if Moscow fell, would the Soviets accept peace as Germany would no doubt offer? I believe they would continue the fight, with those factories out of bomber range pumping out tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft. Lend Lease deliveries went through the Arctic, Persia and the Pacific, so they would still get their supplies. The further you go into Russia, the more area the Soviets have to counter-attack and disrupt supply lines.

I think the Allies’ requirement of holding the Axis capitols makes sense. It’s based on reality with FDR’s Unconditional Surrender doctrine. It also makes sense that the same requirement isn’t needed for the Axis, since a negotiated peace is what they were after. But as long as the Allies are still capable of defeating the Axis, they would fight on. For this, perhaps the victory conditions needs to be maintained for 3 turns. If the Axis can consolidate it for multiple turns…if the Allies are unable to dislodge the Axis after said number of turns, perhaps they would negotiate a peace agreement, which would be an Axis victory.

This makes for a game that isn’t as long as Total Annihilation…

That being said, Japan should be required to hold the west coast of mainland U.S. for victory in the Pacific.

@PainState:

If we look at China in AA 1940 the main issue is that the game is the main problem, keep the game simple. If you introduce terrain into the game then China becomes a totally different beast to handle.

Kansu, Suiyuyan, Tsinghai and Shensi are basically a huge desert wasteland, high altitude and very nasty winter weather. In the real war Japan had 0 interest in marching a army over thousands of miles of desert wasteland. Then again in 1940 that is the ideal path for Japan to help against Russia.

Sikang, Szechwan, Yunnan and Kweichow are dominated by mountains and steep valleys. It is treacherous and not a very fun place to mount combat operations in. Once again in real life Japan had 0 interest in getting into a massive fight with entrenched China soldiers in mountains. But in 1940 not a big deal, in fact the path to India goes through Yunnan.

In real life there was basically no desire or effort to take out all of China. All the important areas of China are found on the coastlands and not in the mountains. Japan was perfectly content to play a defensive war with China and keep them pinned up in their mountains. Then maybe the Communist and Nationals might just start fighting each other in the process.

The simplicity of Axis and Allies is the main hang up with China. China was not simple for Japan when it comes to terrain and climate. Which has 0 effect when playing A&A.

In the real war Japan got around the nasty mountains of Yunnan by going through FIC, Shan State, Burma. They by passed all that nasty terrain and went through South East Asia. Japan was held off at the border of India for the entire war.

How did India hold out the entire war against Japan aggression on its Eastern border? Oh, yeah, there is this nasty mountain chain that runs between Burma and India and when you get close to the coast line it is all river/swamp/jungle fighting.

I concur 100%
I played my first game of balanced global on TripleA today, suggested by barney…still against AI to see how it handles. lol
I like it better. China is a little tougher to fight as it requires garrisons. Still simplified versus real life, but in a game you can only do so much.