JerseyJohn Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Weather Conditions and their effects. Mid-Spring, Summer, Early Fall Perfect Weather for offensives. Late Fall Heavy Rain, compromised flying conditions. Winter Snow, greatly reduced ground movement, reduced flying effectiveness. Amphibeous Landings impossible except in Perfect Weather Areas. Early Spring Thaw, Mud, reduced movement, no effect on flying conditions. These effects would vary according to Weather Area. Weather Areas of the MAP. North African Coast Morocco to Syria/Iraq.including Gibraltar area and Sicily. Unaffected by weather conditions. Northern Mediteranean, Iberian Penninsula (except Gibraltar region), Southern France, Italy (except Sicily), Balkans, Turkey. Mildly effected, except for RAIN and MUD. England, Northern France, Ireland, Low Countries, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Baltic States, Ukrain, Crimea and Caucasus.Normal effect of each season. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Remainder of Russia not included in Other Groups (Lenningrad-Urals-Minsk-Smolensk-Moskow-Kharkov to Stalingrad in South. Severe Weather. Russian Winter Rules, Sever Rain and Severe Mud. These zones conform approximately with the ones used in similar games such as COS and High Command. The net effect would be: Twelve months of ideal campaign weather in the Southern Med/Middle East areas. Ten months of ideal campaign weather in the Northern Mediteranean. Eight month of ideal campaign weather in the Normal Weather Areas. Six month ideal campaign weather with Russian Winter rules for first winter and less severe for sebsequent snow seasons in the Severe Weather Areas. Amphibeous Landings could take place ONLY in IDEAL CAMPAIGN WEATHER.* === *In conjuction with the Weather and it's effect upon amphibeous invasions, there should be a special one time only Norway/Denmark Takeover Option which I've suggested has it's own Forum -- click below to go there. Denmark-Norway Option [ March 01, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Weather conditions should be adressed in SC2.Effects on movement seem logical to me,but shouldn't there be some effects for supplylines as well?Invading Axis or Allied forces (in Russia,Italy,France,...) should have their supplies reduced depending in which weatherzone they are.To counter a to heavy loss of supply there could be a techtree to research some sort of 'winter-equipment' like someone suggested in a previous thread. Good basic layout JerseyJohn,it's time to discuss the weatherforcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 Kurt88 This Forum is addressed to SC 2! Agreed on all your points. The issue needs to be explored, I'm just laying the basic groundwork for everyone else to consider and work into shape. A tech tree, as per Minotaur's suggestion in another forum, regarding petrochemical products, etc., seems reasonable. I don't want to delve into it myself as [1] it wasn't my idea, [2] I've already stated too much and it's time to hear the viewpoints of others and [3] I'm sure someone else would co a better job of it. And hopefully the forcast is sunny. [ February 28, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Here what I suggested in "What I don't want to see in SC2..."... -------------------- Very good point... I think all other 'WW2 Grand Strategy' games that I've played take weather into account... It also reminds me an idea I had... We should add a new reserch topic (another one ) : 'Winter preparation'... With the winter factor suggested, the more you research this topic, the more you prepare your armies for the cold/mud... So, instead of boosting a unit, this research will remove some disadvantages that occurs in bad weather times: Better movement in winter... Less casualties because of the cold... better winter supply net... Etc... Think of it as a general 'How to prepare for cold/mud' topic... Perfecting anti-freeze... giving better clothing to your troops... Wide-track research... Efficient food-heating for your soldiers... A grease that can sustain cold weather... Training ski-troopers... Etc... Keep in mind that this research wouldn't boost units in winter but instead partially negate the effect of the winter times... And this research will affect all your units equally... --------------- I suggested it because at the start of the war, no one was prepared for a winter war (except Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia)... And we are not Hitler or Stalin, we may indeed listen to advices we received ... And we know a war in Russia will last more that 8 weeks... So you may as well know bad weather will come and prepare for it by researching new ways of countering it... Of course, at the start of the game, Finland, Sweden and Norway should have level 2 and Russia should have Level 1... And yes, you could still plug a hole in your Russian front by sending Italians or Romanians Armies, but you'll pay the price when winter will come (assuming Italy didn't research this topic, of course...)... The point of this research is to help units in a winter conditions to survive... Giving them more movement, preparation and reducing casualties from bad weather... Supply Net & Reinforcements should still be difficult to have in hard weather... [ February 28, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 What needs to be addressed is that the turns should be of a weekly or bi-weekly nature and do away with these month long turns...consistent turns along with variable regional weather conditions have been preached on these boards ever since SC1 came out...let's hope these ideas get some play... http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000789 [ February 28, 2003, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 Minotaur Glad the idea has been moved here and expanded upon. I like it and hope it makes it's way into an expanded research tree. J. P. Wagner I know it has, and at least twice before I tried to get something moving on it and both times it fizzled, as it had with the earlier entries. This one is a bit more specific. I agree the turns should be uniform regardless of the number of days each would have, and the variance in movement rate, combat effectiveness, etc., should be determined by season, weather and region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 JJ... I don't think any idea has actually "fizzled" around here. I just think that, until we know what's brewing in Hubert's head, we are sort of spinning our wheels here...it's been kinda quiet on the future development front... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Originally posted by J P Wagner: ...it's been kinda quiet on the future development front... Too quiet... We would like to know more... Please... Hubert... are you dead?... And BTW... Don't forget to modify hexes to indicate which temperature it has... - No change = good weather... - Blue borderline = rain... (everywhere and can happen at anytime... except in winter, of course... ) - Brown borderline = rain/mud (specific to Russia)... - White borderline = winter... With that, you could see winter moving toward the south 1-2 hexes each week at the start of winter... and fall back when winter ends... A thing we can't see in boardgames... Rain should also appear randomly around the map, to simulate hard rain... It can apper anywhere, in France, Yugoslavia, Russian 'Summer', etc... This rain should influence the fighting under it (no Air Fleet mission possible simulating an overcast, half Corps & Armies movement through or in it, etc...)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 JPW -- You're right, it only feels like they're fizzing. A little feedback works wonders. The future development buffs must be on vacation. Glad you included that URL under your first entry. Repeated it below. Hopefully everyone coming here will click on it and read the thread -- I hadn't seen that Forum (from last August), if I had, instead of starting this one I'd have made a new posting there and brought it back to the front. We're thinking along similar lines but you beat me there by six months! Here's hoping it pushes through this time. Minotaur Great stuff, you're ideas are defining the topic and making it more workable. JP Wagner's Similar Forum of Last August -- Excellent thread full of good ideas and interesting feedback. [ February 28, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 excellent postings! The Allies had a very hard time getting landings that's why D-Day was put off! It was rare to get good weather in Europe. The Germans Had great benifits from gaining Norway as they could get their weather balloons up further north and see much more that was incoming... I know during the Battle of Bulge Conditions were quite harsh and often even with superior airpower in Europe itself it was hard to truely use it... You couldn't see anything, let alone find your target! As was 1941 one of the harshest Russian Winters in history<hmmmm, wonders> Maybe it was a Gift from God aye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Originally posted by J Wagner: Weekly Turns and Weather Zones I feel the monthly and bi weekly turns would be unnecessary if there were weather zones charted on the map. Weather Zone 1 Russia Weather Zone 2 Northern Europe Weather Zone 3 Central Europe Weather Zone 4 Western Europe Weather Zone 5 UK and Ireland Weather Zone 6 Southern Europe Weather Zone 7 North Africa Weather Zone 8 US and Canada These zones could even be divided further for example, 2 or 3 zones in Russia. I think we could simplify the zones a bit... Weather Zone 1 - Russia Weather Zone 2 - Northern Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland (if the new map is big enough )... Weather Zone 3 - Central Europe: Ireland, UK, France, Low Countries, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Poland, Baltic States... Weather Zone 4 - Southern Europe: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, All northern Africa... Weather Zone 5 - US and Canada (Not sure if we should bother about these two, unless we want to simulate a more realist U-boot/convoy mechanic or a possible Axis invasion of these countries)... Russia would be a special case, since almost all it's territory may have snow and we should still take into account the special mud effect... Originally posted by J Wagner: The weather could potentially change in each zone every week based on three factors: 1 the weather from the previous week 2 the weather zone 3 the seasonVery good... Originally posted by J Wagner: The weather available could be: Clear Rain Snow Fog I completely forgot about fog... It could be random as rain, but will happen more often in certain area (like in and around UK, on the ocean, etc...) But in a way, rain and fog will have the same effect on units... Air Fleets not able to fly... Ships not seeing a damn thing (Radar technology would be a tremendous advantage in this situation)... So we may think about combining rain and fog... Originally posted by J Wagner: Weather effects would include: Movement Restrictions Operation Movement Restrictions Combat effectiveness Supply line reductions Air attack limitations Strategic Bombing limitations Yes... Good effects list... And I will add two others: Shore bombardment limitations Amphibious transport limitations (not possible or at a much higher MPP costs) And the 'Weather Research' could partially nullify the... - Movement Restrictions - Operation Movement Restrictions - Combat effectiveness ... of all land units... Originally posted by J Wagner: You could click onto a weather map to see the current weather in each zone and as mentioned by others, the hex colors could change. Definitely border hexes colors... More user-friendly and easy to check on-the-spot... [ March 01, 2003, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 Liam Good input, there were a few severe winters in Europe during the war. It was also severe in Western Europe during the 1939 - 1940 winter. This caused Hitler to postpone the invasion of the Low Countries several times. In the game, however, it's common for the Low Countries to be invaded during December. This would have been very difficult. Invading troops would have inched their way across the borders along narrow, back roads battling snow and mud while the French and British moved north by rail and sea transport, reaching their ideal defensive positions before the invading troops ever came close. Without weather effects there's no way to simulate any of this, winter is as good as summer except for the turns being shorter -- reflecting only part of the situation. A related Forum that nobody's commented on yet, Historical German Scandinavian Option, provides a method of recreating Germany's veiled invasion of Denmark and Norway at the end of the winter, when it should be next to impossible to conduct amphibeous landings along the Norwegian coastline. [Denmark-Norway Option] Minotaur Very fine merging of the ideas of this forum with those of JP Wagner's earlier forum. I think you've worked it all into a viable concept with your weather research idea tying in and making sense. [ March 01, 2003, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Hubert? Are you back from your party spree with the SPICE GIRLS? Any thoughts about JJ's timely ressurection of the weather rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 JerseyJohn,sorry for my poor english.I meant 'Weather should INDEED be adressed in SC2' as your forum title said.Sorry about that. Great ideas here from everyone,especially the bordercolors for the hexes as Minotaur said.(What if one turns the hexgrid off?I'm just being difficult here ) If I understand it right the (much bigger) map would be divided in weather zones,each with their types of weather wich on their turn would have effects on units,movement and supply,right?This would improve the game greatly. One thing is missing IMO though: attrition. The German army suffered great losses in the Russian winter due to lack of food and medical supplies.Thousands of soldiers were underfed and even more wounded died cos they didn't receive the appropriate medical assistance.In SC now,a unit with a strenght of let's say 9 only has this number reduced in combat.The strenght of a unit could also be affected by lack of food and medicines,especially in winter.So a unit that has a low supply (to far from HQ,city,port,is surrounded,...) should see it's strenght reduced even if it's not in combat.Ofcourse this will only happen in the most harsh regions of the map (Russia,Finland,Northern parts of Sweden and Norway) in the worst of conditions.No research to counter this. One condition for all this is the size of the map.I can't see it being a relevant gameplay element on the map we have now.It would have to be much bigger so a unit could get lost in the immensity of Russia and get slaughtered by the weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 2, 2003 Author Share Posted March 2, 2003 Kurt88 No need to appologize for your English, it's easily understandable and clear. The type of misunderstanding from leaving out a word or two is common and happens to all of us; I've been quoted on several occasions in these forums saying the exact opposite of what I meant because I'd typed something in and left a key word out. I thought my own entry was misunderstood and was in no way insinuating your English is inadequate; it isn't. For a second or third language you English is extremely good. In this case the appology is mine. Good point about attrition losses from extreme weather. I suggested increased casualties but you're right, units thousands of miles from their supply base suffered losses from sheer lack of essentials that never made it to them. This was also a big problem in the Pacific. America believed a myth that the Japanese were more suited to jungle fighting for some unstated and absurd reasons. In reality, Japanese troops thousands of miles from the Home Islands lost a great number of men to disease. In many cases they lacked even the most rudimentary medical items due to the distance supplies had to travel -- and later there was also interdiction because they were so distant that the war had moved to their rear. Agreed, distance, especially in Russia, should include considerable non-combat casualties. This would also make it more difficult to dislodge a weakened Russia from it's last ditch Ural defenses, making the game more challenging and realistic. [ March 01, 2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Originally posted by kurt88: Great ideas here from everyone,especially the bordercolors for the hexes as Minotaur said.(What if one turns the hexgrid off?I'm just being difficult here )Well my difficult friend... Hexgrid On: Clear weather = Black border... Hexgrid Off: Clear weather = no border... Originally posted by kurt88: If I understand it right the (much bigger) map would be divided in weather zones,each with their types of weather wich on their turn would have effects on units,movement and supply,right?This would improve the game greatly.That's it... Originally posted by kurt88: One thing is missing IMO though: attrition. Indeed... Attrition should be of 2 types: - Because of bad weather... - Because of 2 enemy units touching each others, simulating various levels of skirmishes between them... (but that's another topic... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Thanks for your good words... Originally posted by JerseyJohn: Good point about attrition losses from extreme weather. I suggested increased casualties but you're right, units thousands of miles from their supply base suffered losses from sheer lack of essentials that never made it to them. That's why I suggest the 'Weather Research'... To help units survive on their own when bad weather arrives... But I think it's important that the supply net, the communication and to some extend the readiness of units should be reduced because of the difficult weather (not seeing a thing in a snow storm, difficult to keep good communication between units and HQs, etc...) Originally posted by JerseyJohn: This was also a big problem in the Pacific. Agreed, distance, especially in Russia, should include considerable non-combat casualties. This would also make it more difficult to dislodge a weakened Russian from it last ditch Ural defenses, making the game more challenging and realistic. Good point... If we have the Pacific in SC2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 2, 2003 Author Share Posted March 2, 2003 Minotaur Good clarifications and linking of ideas. I think the various issues are starting to come together. [ March 01, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonsuch Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 I really don't know about this John. You have clearly given this a lot of thought and I wouldn't take issue with anything you propose but I do have difficulty with the notion of assembling them in a game of this type. It isn't third reich or drang nach osten and all the better for it. How far would you go? Freeze all rivers north of the Bug for attack and movement purposes during the Russian winter? Whatever else this is still a strategic game and maybe it is beer and ptetzels also - who cares. It's fun and it's playable and it has a good deal of historical accuracy. If it is also unbalanced in human v human play then let's address it. Winter rules make sense but let's keep them simple and make them affect supply (to represent logistical problems) and experience (to factor in attrition) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 2, 2003 Author Share Posted March 2, 2003 Nonsuch Valid points. But this is an SC 2 suggestion. Presumably SC 2 will entail greater use of realism; also, I see no reason why a more complex SC 2 game can't incorporate the old SC; simpler game and more complex game as was often done with boardgame products. Your example of frozen Russian rivers is a good one. Yes, I'd like to see them freeze during the coldest winter months. The Don being frozen allowed the Russians to break through against the ill-equipped Romanians on Stalingrad's Left Flank. Wouldn't that be a good thing to have as part of this game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 I don't wish to speak for anyone else, but we have our "beer and pretzels" game with SC1....I think that we now want to advance to the next level (if that's Huberts intent that is). While no one wants to see an SPI War in Europe monolith on our hands (well...maybe on that one)...we still want to see a game that presents more challenges....weather would be one component of that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonsuch Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: [QB] Nonsuch Valid points. But this is an SC 2 suggestion. Presumably SC 2 will entail greater use of realism; also, I see no reason why a more complex SC 2 game can't incorporate the old SC; simpler game and more complex game as was often done with boardgame products. Your example of frozen Russian rivers is a good one. Yes, I'd like to see them freeze during the coldest winter months. The Don being frozen allowed the Russians to break through against the ill-equipped Romanians on Stalingrad's Left Flank. Wouldn't that be a good thing to have as part of this game! Please no, How far does this go? The soviets attempted a similar encirclement at the same time in the North at Velike Luki and got their troops across the frozen river but couldn't move their tanks and artillery. I'm too old for reading rule 5.5 subsection 3 in a manual. Besides doesn't the extra complexity play into the hands of those looking for yet another loophole to exploit in their quest for the "unbeatable strategy" My fervent hope is that SC2 keeps things simple and concentrates on play balance (although you have won me round to the introductio of a weather factor of some sort) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 2, 2003 Author Share Posted March 2, 2003 Nonsuch As we were saying before, JP Wagner and myself, why not have the two games packaged together -- SC original for those who like it as it is, and SC 2 for those who want more realism? Players could choose the one they want to use every time they boot the program. The river issue -- again, it would be in SC 2 -- would just be a matter of a blue line turning white during the Winter, when it becomes a normal hes, and blue again in the Spring when it becomes a river again. No extra rules to remember, everything happens on the playing map. The fact that crossing frozen rivers worked sometimes and not others is fine. It just means some battles are won and some are lost under identical weather/terrain conditions. Also, in the first instance we're talking about massive Russian formations with armor fighting poorly trained and equiped Romanians while in the second instance it's Russians without armor going against entrenched, well trained, well equipped German defenders. Perhaps that's the real difference in the two battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 NonSuch - Indeed... Put too many small, specific rules and SC lose its 'Beer & Pretzel' appeal... But I must also say that I've never played a WW2 game (Boardgame or Computer) that never take into account weather... SC is perhaps the only one... Perhaps changing from week-turns to month-turn is a way to 'simulate' the change of season, but in the game it certainly doesn't stop an attack momentum!... And since the computer will take care of everything... It will decide when and where rain/snow will be and showing it directly on the map... And since rain/fog should be random, that means not 2 games will be the same... If weather is done well, I sincerely think it will be more fun than trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 And another point coming right up... Reinforcements... 1) I think you should not be able to totally reinforce your units in winter... Lets says you can reinforce up to strength 5 only... And lets say you can reinforce +1 points per level of 'Winter Preparation'... For example, a Corps... Anti-Tank Level 0 and Winter Preparation Level 0 Maximum Point = 5 Anti-Tank Level 5 and Winter Preparation Level 0 Maximum Point = 5 Anti-Tank Level 5 and Winter Preparation Level 5 Maximum Point = 10 Anti-Tank Level 0 and Winter Preparation Level 5 Maximum Point = 10 2) Reinforcements should cost more in winter than in any other season... Let's say twice the cost... And no level of 'Winter Preparation' can change that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts