Slitherine

Hello,

I have a question regarding the timeline consistency in the Alternate Axis campaign. I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding something, or if this is simply a narrative oversight, so I wanted to ask for clarification.

In the alternate path, the sequence appears roughly as follows:

Stalingrad is won by Germany in August 1941

A separate German force opens a Caucasus front in November 1942

The Germans advance further along the Volga in December 1942

The Kuybyshev scenario takes place in February 1943

In the briefing of the Kuybyshev scenario, it is stated that after the fall of Moscow, the Soviet leadership relocated to Kuybyshev, implying that Moscow has already fallen by this point.

However, later in the campaign there is a Moscow scenario dated May 1943, which presents Moscow as still standing and being actively fought over.

This creates some confusion from a timeline and narrative perspective:
if Moscow had already fallen before February 1943, it’s unclear how it can still be the objective of a major battle in May 1943.

Is this meant to represent:

a “de facto” loss of Moscow rather than its literal capture,

a branching of different alternate-history assumptions,

or is it simply a known narrative inconsistency for gameplay reasons?

I really enjoy the alternate-history campaign and I’m asking purely out of interest in understanding the intended storyline better.

Thanks in advance for any clarification!

Are you sure you're not mixing up the campaigns?

Kuybyshev is the finale of the Russian campaign after you've taken the route through Moscow/Rostov in the base game campaign is it not?

Moscow '43 scenario is a different timeline of its own, which takes place assuming you took command of the more successful Afrika corps. In *that* timeline your successes in Africa is what allows the salvation of Stalingrad, which leads to your conquest of Moscow 43.

I can't see either scenario for the AO alternative paths.

I meant the alternative campaign of the base game.
One route is: Persia, Caucasus, Moscow ’43.
The other route is: Stalingrad, Along the Volga, Kuybyshev.
I initially thought these routes were part of a single continuous path, timeline, meaning that Kuybyshev would come after Moscow 43
But does this mean that these two routes are actually two separate timelines?
So one route does not follow the other; instead, I either capture Moscow in ’43, or—after Stalingrad—I capture Kuybyshev?
The routes never intersect.

Actually i play the axis operations alternative way for the first time. I used the 6. army as flank protection and encircled the soviet forces at kursk with my tiger and panther tank army.

I dont have a problem with the timeline, but it lacks an explanation for the logistics and fuel problem.

Where did the germans get the masses of fuel, for my tank army and the necessary logistics to transport this masses of fuel all the time, well protected ?

I mean a tiger army would have needed so much fuel all the time, even IF the germans would have had so much fuel, where do you get the additional trucks, which need fuel too of course, for that ? And the terrain is bad, really bad, no good infrastructure. So these trucks would have had problems reaching the tank army. And when the weather gets worse...and of course they are easy targets.

Most people dont understand, what an enormous logistic nightmare the supply of an tiger tank army in the wide russian area would have been. And i am talking only about the area of kursk and the wide flank manouver, 300 - 500 km i think.

Supplying such a tiger army even further, down the caucasus, is sci fi.

So the developement of heavy tanks was a waste of ressources for germany. They only could have had an impact, with lots of them. And for lots of them they didnt have the logistics. They knew that and still wasted ressources for developing tanks, that they could never supply in the necessary larger numbers. Quite stupid.

A good medium tank that needs much fewer fuel, with a good main gun, would have been a better solution, without wasting ressources for heavys. And instead of the idiotic V2 development, some say it costed half of the manhattan project and masses of fuel,1000 superior planes and more synthetic fuel plants would have been better. (planes to regain air supority and protect the fuel plants which supply medium tank armys and superior planes and maybe even a fleet of type 21 submarines which need little fuel because of electric engine)

So the germans where really good in developing the wrong things. Another example: Big warships. They never had a chance to become as strong as the royal navy AND the us navy. So why wasting ressources for these expensive big targets ? Should have used the money from the beginning for better submarines and faster type 21 development.

Its really not easy to find a good explanation for an alternative timeline.

I see only one "realistic" way to conquer russia in an alternative timeline:
Using ukraine and other people in russia that hate stalin as allies from the start, maybe even caucasian people. This would have been a big problem for stalin because of loosing oil from the beginning. So the supply lines would have been shorter and the ukraine would have supported instead of attacked the supply of barbarossa.

But you can only do that, IF you treat them like equals and free them of stalins tyranny.

That could have led to an civil war in the soviet union. In other words, nazis must stop beeing nazis. Their ideology united everybody against them. They united people that hated stalin with stalin, they united capitalists and communists, seems the main problem was hitler and his crazy ideology.

And to be safe of the americans you need a big fleet of superior type 21 submarines.
Without control of the atlantic, germany cant survive. So britain would have been permanently cut off and starved to capitulation. And the americans would have lost their complete atlantic trade. Even nuking germany is a problem, without a european base and masses of german jets.