Make Weather Last for FULL turn before changes

[ChrisND]

I just had the most infuriating game I have ever had. Victory practically hinged on my forces being able to close in on a certain city. But I couldnt even move, because:

For four monthes straight, the weather would be clear and dry on my opponents turn, and then alternate to muddy on my turn and so on. The result was that my forces were stuck and impotent while his could jet around at will. We ended up quitting and ending the game as a tie it got so ridiculous.

Weather should last a FULL turn, Allies AND Axis, before it changes. It defies common sense that you can't take advantage, or be hindered by, the same weather your opponent is experiencing right next next to you.

[Bromley]

Here's hoping SC3 will be WEGO.

[jon_j_rambo]

Quit crying, you guys wanted weather.

[Major Spinello]

Actually, Normal Dude is right. It also should not be too difficult to program weather to be the same for both combatants, no?

[rclawson007]

Haha. I experienced the same thing...as early as the drive to Paris (early launch of course). 4-5 turns in a row the Germans got mud, while the Allies got clear weather. I like the weather, it is just unbalancing when it changes between sides in an alternating pattern. And that is what needs to be adjusted, simply for game balance.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

You can do it right now, if you choose "simultaneous"-

but actually IIRC weather will switch even if it is

the "same" week that your opponent had...

[ChrisND]

DiFool,

Problem is that changing to simultaneous completely changes the balanca of the game. Try it out, you'll see what I mean.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Yeah, I noticed that in Honch's scenario-but can't

you halve the MPP income to compensate?

[ChrisND]

I suppose, but you would have to change movement, and who knows what else. I'm afraid to touch it

[Honch]

Just choose simultaneous with 14 day normalization. The MPPs are 1/2 in summer, normal in Fall/Spring and double in winter. It works fine.

[ChrisND]

What about movement though? Wouldn't units be able to do twice as much as before?

[vveedd]

You have my vote. In all turn based games I knew one game turn consist Axis turn and Allied turn in permanent or different order (depend from game to game). So if we have different weather effects for playing sides in one game turn this is not fair and balanced.

[TaoJah]

I totally agree with this one : it's unfair and can ruin every campaign.

[pzgndr]

it's unfair and can ruin every campaign.

Is it really? Statistically, both sides should see their fair share of good and bad weather each season. If the randomness is not happening then there might be an issue there to look at and fix. But I've seen it go both ways, favoring either one side or the other, and frankly it's an element of uncertainty that makes each game unique.

For the simultaneous turn option the weather should be the same for both sides. For the standard seasonal turns where time marches on, the random weather is OK. NOT knowing what your opponent's weather may be next turn challenges both players to consider all possibilities.

[Sombra]

Its quite frustrating and somehow its fun at the same time.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

I totally agree with this one : it's unfair and can ruin every campaign.

That's war, mother nature did not take sides and some games weather might be a determining factor.

It's funny people complain about the game being to easy to "calculate" through (Like Terif does) and then we have complaints about one random event

Weather system is fine, it adds variety. I've played it enough to see that most games it is not a determining factor. 2-3% of the games I have played weather was a determining factor for one side. Such is war.

[Terif]

Same as with any other random event: you simply have to adopt to it and change plans accordingly. Only as long as you hope for the right random result and don´t plan for alternatives you have a problem. It´s like trying to go with the head through a wall - if it happens that the wall is too strong, then be prepared to take a different way .

[Scott_WAR]

This is a game, its not really world war 2 and thats not a tank going down the road outside your house.

As a game this should be FUN and BALANCED.

Weather screwing over one player, and in the same turn NOT screwing over the other player is UNBALANCING, espscially since its random.

Nothing like playing a game for a few hours opnly to have to quit because the weather is consistently screwing over one player and not the other. Its NOT fun when that happens.

[Desert Dave]

You have MANY variables.

Weather being merely one of them.

Some others being:

Diplomatic results.

Tech Achievements.

Unpredictable combat dice rolls.

As Terif the Myth has aptly stated,

You must ADJUST according to new variables

Introduced as the game progresses.

What would you prefer?

A safe,

Predictable,

Constant,

And soon boring adventuring?

Game after game after game?

The weather WAS a major factor in this war,

And in EVERY war since

Wielding long animal bones

In the Cave Days.

Why ever would you want stultifying SAMENESS,

Come rain or shine? :confused:

[Blashy]

Scott, it might be a game, but this is a "historical" game.

You rarely had "balance" in history, especially in wars, if you create balance, then you might not as well name it WW2 because that is unhistorical.

This is one time where I have to disagree in the gaming world.

Historical type games have to remain historical, that is the whole point AND challenge.

IMHO, this game should favor the Allies long term (biggest, army, industry and world allies) and if weather also happens to change the course of history so be it.

As I said, I've only seen it 2-3% of the time where weather was a determining factor.

If you want a game to be balanced, do not play historical type war games.

[SeaMonkey]

Weather is fine in SC2...and out here in the Coastal Bend also.

Structured vision serves only to limit the possibilities, adaptation and innovation got us to where we are now.

Now let's hear someone say, "Its no better than living in the caves. It was better a millenium ago, a century, 20 years, last month, yesterday."

Sheesh

[Major Spinello]

I would not use "unfair" because pzgndr is probably right that it will "even out" in the long run. However it seems inconsistent to me. At a given date, the weather may be fair or not, but not both. If I do not miss anything important, then even though we have an "I go - U go"-system, we are to asssume that the Axis and Allies "really" act during the same time (turn). It´s not that one side sits tight for a week or so, waiting until the other side has moved. Or is it???

[janbo]

I do think a random weather system is indeed a good one. Like pzgndr said, it'll even out in the long term.

BUT what worries me is competetive tournaments, which we had in SC for example. Like Curry's France Campaign tournament. You've got no long run and weather may screw whole tournaments.

[Blashy]

Yep you are right, weather in ONE game out of 50 might be decided by weather.

Might not be fun or then again it can be something to have a good laugh over for BOTH sides.

[SeaMonkey]

Exactly Blashy, good to see the heart of an SC Knight.

Give it up guys, these random features bring out the best in players by spurring them to improvisation.

If you can't hack it....well your just a vassal, a pawn in the shadows of SC greatness.

Knights......you know who you are...take a bow, for it is you that can cut through the chaos of variability...persevering and grasping the victory from the throes of defeat.

I salute you.