Rail Capacity & Sea Transport's Affect on Game Balance

[Sturlungur]

If we produce an EA 1.8 (j), and the British surrender on a 25% chance when the Germans take France,

Interesting suggestion. But maybe to decisive. What about 10% chance of the government offering peace and a civil war follows. Britain splits up in a huge number of Warmongers and a little group of Peaceniks. If the Axis player is on his toes he can be quick and take advantage of the situation otherwise the Peaceniks will be quickly put out of their misery.

Man power wouldn't've been too serious I think (compared to what they'd lost elsewhere), but the oil fields provided 75%(?) of the total russian oil production. Thier loss would've had a catastrophic impact on the russian economy

The loss of oil would have been very serious but wasn't the Russian Bear getting into manpower problems in post 1943? They pressed masses of men into their army from German prison camps and liberated areas. I think their disregard to the lives of privates was catching up with them in the end. Had they not been able to go to the offensive they probably would have had problems with replacing losses.
So maybe catching strategic cities with the bonus of disbanding units can work both ways. With the limit that the Russians desperatly need to go to the offensive otherwise their pool of replacements will dry up.

 

[SkyVon]

Originally posted by Dan Neely
Man power wouldn't've been too serious I think (compared to what they'd lost elsewhere), but the oil fields provided 75%(?) of the total russian oil production. Thier loss would've had a catastrophic impact on the russian economy. The loss of the persian corridor would eliminate the 'safe' route for lendlease. The Murmansk convoys were being brutally hammered at this point in time.

If the Germans pushed far enough east, manpower would become a problem for the russians. Quite simply there are a finite number of population centers available for largescale conscription, if the Germans could overrun enough of them the russians would be reduced to partisan tactics.

So then, should we look at having a greater (more than -4) economic impact on Russia (allies) if Baku is taken? And what about taking Tehran and Murmansk...Wouldn't that also have another impact on the Allies?

 

[Wolfe Tone]

It is true that Maikop, Baku and Grozny were all very important to the Soviet War Economy. However the Russians also had oil fields in Siberia IIRC, so the taking of Baku and Grozny would not have knocked the Soviet Union out of the War but would have had a serious effect on their ability to conduct large scale offensive operations.

 

[Mark Stevens]

And wasn't the USA the world's largest oil producer in the WWII era? Presumably they would have made an all-out effort to keep the USSR supplied via Murmansk, Persia or the Far East?

 

[SkyVon]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
And wasn't the USA the world's largest oil producer in the WWII era? Presumably they would have made an all-out effort to keep the USSR supplied via Murmansk, Persia or the Far East?

Is it possible to tie in a three city capture that would have an effect on Russian supply/production? If Baku, Tehran and Murmansk are held by Axis.... A case could be made that Baku and Tehran are interchangeable thus only Murmansk and Baku/Tehran would have the desired effect. Something like this may force the Allies to pay more attention to Egypt/Iraq.