arado234 Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 How far into russia does the axis have to go to"trigger"the russian winter?The reason i ask is whats to stop someone from just sending a few units further into russia to cause the russian winter and have the rest of the armed forces pull back unharmed. Is there a certian date when it happens or could it be any winter turn? Are all russian hexes effected by the winter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 I believe it affects the supply of all German owned cities in Russia, cutting the overall effectivess of your forces there. Too lazy to look up the scripts right now. Either way it's doing its job of slowing you down and giving the Russians more time to build up defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 There is no trigger. It affects the Russian cities. You would have to totally pull out of Russia or just leave units on cities. Basically the Axis can not afford to do that. It occurs automatically when winter sets in. Siberian transfer has triggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted August 22, 2007 Author Share Posted August 22, 2007 Ok.Thanks blashy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miech Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I found out it also triggers Riga, even if you took it before USSR annexes it (ie as a conquered minor of Germany) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Originally posted by Blashy: There is no trigger. It affects the Russian cities. You would have to totally pull out of Russia or just leave units on cities. Basically the Axis can not afford to do that. It occurs automatically when winter sets in. Siberian transfer has triggers. ...is there anything the Axis player can do to prepare for the Russian Winter? In 1941-42 the German's failed to ship adequate winter supplies for their troops because they gave priority to the Moscow ofensive, and, because they were overconfident of a quick victory. In 42-43 and 43-44 German troops were better prepared for the winter. It was still extremely tough on the troops, but it was just as tough for the soviet troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Their hardware was also severely affected, not just the soldiers. No you can not, you start the war with a doctrine and even though you take over, the doctrine is already in place (No production of proper supplies or hardware for winter). You do your best with what you have . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Odd doctrine. Ya know, Infrastructure Tech should be changed to lessen the effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Originally posted by Lars: Odd doctrine. Ya know, Infrastructure Tech should be changed to lessen the effects. Especially when you have a big case history by ways of Napoleon and many others in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Well, I just had this mental bubble of a staffer writing down in the Big Book of Doctrine, "LandesWehr TroopenMitten - Verboten…" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Originally posted by Lars: Odd doctrine. Ya know, Infrastructure Tech should be changed to lessen the effects. I agree 100%. The fact is that the Wermacht was somewhat better prepared for their second winter in Russia... and this greatly reduced the damaging effects on troops. Also, winter effects should hurt the Russians also. The Russians faired badly in Finnland partly because they were not ready for the winter. They learned more than a few lessons there, and, were working on those issues when Hitler attacked. If we use Lars idea we could have the Russians (and every one else) hurt by Russian winter, but give the Russians a headstart in infrastructure. Having said that, I would Helsinki should be spared from the "Russian" winter effects ...to simulate Finland's better preparedness to handle the tough winter conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 How is infrastructure relevant?? :confused: The problem was with thte troops and the equipment - the troops were, literally, freezing to death. They huddled in whatever shelter there was, leaving vast areas undefended. At it's worst anything containing lubricant of fuel ceased to work when that froze. A general lowering of effectiveness via crappy supply state seems appropriate, but I don't see how doign anything to infrastructure does. There's a Leavenworth paper on fighting the Soviets in Winter here - Archangel 1918-19, Finland 1940, Moscow 41-42. Worth a read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Winter effect hits you only on the winter of 1942. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
targul Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I have no problem with the replication of the Russian winter from the results I have heard from Blashy sounds like it maybe correct. I do believe the could have prepared for the winter in part however. There should be a tech option at a cost or something to allow the Axis player to not make as critical an error. Reason is the idea that the war would be over by winter was a little overboard and could have been brought down to a tamer level. But since that was the worst winter in there history it would still have some effect but not the disaster it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Come on SO, I know you can see an abstracted connection. Infrastructure.... a foundation to build on, the basics, transportation, communication, farming, clothing, waste disposal, etc. Guess what makes a region a great economic model. Guess why the USA uses most of the Earth's energy per capita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I understand what infrastructure is - I fail to see how some sort of "winter" effect on it is a better means of simulating winter than directly affecting the troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
targul Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 Agree with "SO" here. That is diffently not an infrastruction thing. That needs to be a unit or some sort of overall payment to accomadate those of us who want to spend our bucks wisely. Maybe an option that increases the cost of units from there conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I agree...a complete lack of the abstract connection.....and thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Crap!! It simply gives you a mechanism in the game to avoid the winter effect. You research infrastructure = you pay MPPs to winterize the equipment and soldiers and perhaps(randomizing) avoid to a lesser degree the consequences. You could also say it was the investment needed to change the eastern railway gauge so the stuff could be delivered. Do you need more abtractions? Would you like me to draw you a picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 There's no need to abstract when you can do it properly. Abstraction is fine when it is necessary because you can't do a more relevant action of some sort - but it is easy to make winter in Russia somethign that affects the front line troops....which is what it actually did. All hte winter effects - on rail, on aircraft, on tanks, on men who didn't have proper clothing - all of them served to reduce the fightign power of hte front line units. None of htem did anythign to reduce the amount of production available in Germany because of some abstracted effect on trasnpoprt. Abstraction is fine in many circumstances - it can add simplicity and it can let you address things that cannot be addressed in any other way. Infrastructure costs for winter do not do this. Increasing them is not abstraction - it is fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Seamonkey has my line of reasoning about correct. Weather affects more than just the front line troops, it affects everything up and down the supply chain. Infrastructure is simply the easiest tech under the current system to fold it into Stalin, nothing more. We don't have a Winter Mitten Tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Lars, The best would be to have a "winter" upgrade per unit. Sometime in the fall or winter a player could buy this "winter" upgrade and that unit or HQ or city would perform better during that winter. In the fall of 1941, the German High Command was so confident of a week victory that they chose to push on toward Moscow instead of resupplying their troops. Plenty of winter coats and other necessities were not shipped to the troops in favor of ammo for the Moscow offensive. A "winter" upgrade would force the unit to stop to resupply ...to call off the offensive. As a second choice, infrastructure is a nice abstraction to represent the fact that with better infrastructure it would have been possible to bring more stuff forward to the troops, e.g. coats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I agree. So...which do you think will be easier for Hubert to code and get to us first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Exactly! Look SO, I'm with you, I recognize that the effect can be presented in a more defined feature and you always have some good ideas of implementation. The fact remains that in WaW we are going to have the effect, this discussion is about what we can do as players to somewhat neutralize it in the realm of What ifs. Remember we are playing the Supreme Commander role, some of us recognize it gets cold in Russia, some of us care about the frontline troops, others will opt to build or research other things. All we are asking for is the choice in WaW, which is to be imminently released. Choice is good. Let's see what we get and go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonslayer Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 The choice is easy... deactivate the soviet winter effect in the scripts before you play. Job Done. No further 'model' is needed imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts