Why are urban areas affected by mud?

[No idea]

It makes no sense that in place where everything is paved mud has any effect (simply because if it is paved there is no mud). I understand cities or towns are different, because, even if paved, they represent just a small area of that particular hex, but urban areas are areas fully occupied by streets and buildings (so, paved).

I think the big penalty to attack with mud should have an exception in urban areas.

[No idea]

Nobody has any opinion?

[Balou]

Reason for the penalty could be the attacker has to start his attack out of a "mud" hex ie from outside the city, town etc. Exceptions would be Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad with 2 or 3 urban hexes.

[No idea]

The attack, so, the penalties to attack, are those of the hex you are attacking, not the penalties given by the hex you come from. If you attack into an urban hex it shouldnt matter where you come from. At least that is how it works for all the attacks. Theones during the "mud season" shouldnt be an exception in that regard.

[swkuh]

You've a point, there. Seems there should be some effect. Let's see what others say.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: rrbill

You've a point, there. Seems there should be some effect. Let's see what others say.

well the mud affects more than just the attack (and I think the OP overstates the amount of hard surface in most Soviet cities in this period). Its going to make a mess of resupply, of moving up reserves, of moving back the wounded and so on.

also its a matter of scale. Pragmatically the Russian mud seasons put an end to almost all sustained operations and I really don't think its feasible in the current game engine to make exceptions for a few hexes.

WiTW has the concept of linking the effect of bad weather to overall transport links (below game scale). That could start to pick up some important differences between say the very poor transport links north of Pskov and the better links between Moscow and Smolensk etc. Even so, this is going to apply at some sort of regional level rather than per hex (type)

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: rrbill

You've a point, there. Seems there should be some effect. Let's see what others say.

well the mud affects more than just the attack (and I think the OP overstates the amount of hard surface in most Soviet cities in this period). Its going to make a mess of resupply, of moving up reserves, of moving back the wounded and so on.

also its a matter of scale. Pragmatically the Russian mud seasons put an end to almost all sustained operations and I really don't think its feasible in the current game engine to make exceptions for a few hexes.

WiTW has the concept of linking the effect of bad weather to overall transport links (below game scale). That could start to pick up some important differences between say the very poor transport links north of Pskov and the better links between Moscow and Smolensk etc. Even so, this is going to apply at some sort of regional level rather than per hex (type)

Well, if there is not any kind of malus to supply during muds (something surprising, as mud, above all, was a logistic nightmare coupled with bad russian infra) then I would understand the penalty to attack even in urban areas as an indirect way to reflect logistic difficulties but, there isnt any malus to supply of your units during the mud season?

[morvael]

There is. Increased MP cost for truck movement (from HQ to unit).

[LiquidSky]

I find it interesting how people will focus on one minor thing and base an entire argument over it.

It is true that a paved city with good drainage probably isn't going to be a muddy battlefield.

However....it is raining. Enough to flood the fields and make the rest of the country a soupy mess. To pretend that has no effect at all on the combat units assigned to assault the city is well...silly.

ALthought the city itself may be paved, the surrounding area probably is not. And you have to set up your artillery. Which will require extra time, and manpower...manpower that will be exhausted from pushing equipment that weighs a ton in muck.

While they are at it..they also have to push the vehicles that supply them...or at least the ones that made it to the front as a lot of the country is a soupy mess.

There will be no air recon. Little air support except for a general bombing.

Now you finally get everything into position...you order your troops to attack. The ones that are tired from pushing all those vehicles/equipment. The ones that might not have had a hot meal for days.

They take the first few blocks on the outskirts of the city. Will they continue to push forward or stay dry in their hard fought building? Will AT guns and other pieces be able to be pushed into the city for support? What about other vehicles? They may be able to enter at certain paved roads, but then the enemy knows that as well...and will have more a more effective defence because of it.

Ammo is consumed in the fighting....is resupply on the way or is it delayed, thus delaying the attack. Not all units will be affected equally, but some will stall.

The question to ask yourself is would the attack be easier if it wasn't raining everywhere? Or do you still think that the attack would be the same regardless of weather?

[No idea]

It just struck me when trying to attack Leningrad port. As I said, if the supply system doesnt take into account the mud season then I understand you get a penalty to attack even in urban areas, as an indirect way of representing the logistic difficulties during mud season. If the supply system took into account the mud season, then the logistic difficulties would have already been taken into account and an exception should be made for attacking into urban areas.

[KWG]

Game wise this is a claim of a double penalty?

I understand the complications of mud, yet at the same time we call rain "Infantry weather" and "good for attacks". As the rain tends to dampen the mental alertness of stationary defenders as it does the sound and vision.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: No idea

It just struck me when trying to attack Leningrad port. As I said, if the supply system doesnt take into account the mud season then I understand you get a penalty to attack even in urban areas, as an indirect way of representing the logistic difficulties during mud season. If the supply system took into account the mud season, then the logistic difficulties would have already been taken into account and an exception should be made for attacking into urban areas.

but the supply system takes full account of mud so I struggle to work out what you are trying to argue?

watch your truck use go through the roof and effective supply ranges contract. You don't get a direct combat penalty, but you will struggle to keep your army properly supplied

edit: I also come back to my point that you may well be misunderstanding the nature of urbanisation in the USSR in the 1940s. I visited Leningrad in the early 1980s and it was quite a shock to realise you didn't have to go far out of the city centre to reach hard packed roads and not much beyond that the ground was bare earth. It would have been worse in 1941.

[morvael]

1/8 actual offensive CV is a serious penalty.

[HMSWarspite]

How many cities in Russia (WW2) are 10 miles across? And what is drainage of said cities when a little warfare has demolished the storm drains, or collapsed buildings into drains? Russia was relatively undeveloped. Don't think modern Western Europe or US.

[chaos45]

Fighting in the rain sucks--never conducted a real urban assault in the rain---but in training have conducted urban assaults in the rain and its a truly miserable experience to say the least.

Pyro doesnt tend to work as well, engineering tasks are more difficult, maneuvering to the assault areas is harder and more time consuming, and in general its miserable for the assault troops.

War in the east probably overstates the effects as I dont think it would reduce combat power to the extent in real life it does in the game. As many offensives in WW2 were carried forward in the mud and in WiTE operations basically come to a complete halt in the mud.

Mud/rain should most like result in closer to only a 50% CV penalty in effect or at worst drop units to 33% CV I really dont think it should be the 1/8th it is now. As it didnt stop all movement and especially infantry movements could continue and artillery units usually can fire quite far so unless its a quick moving advance- unlikely in the mud Artillery positions most likely are already in place or not moving much.

[KWG]

Weather can be 50/50 in combat and many great military achievements have happen in bad weather. And if you can keep you "powder dry" and your morale is true then misery is what you will bring. I spent over a month in the hospitable for jungle rot and being wet was as acceptable as being dry. Unit size plays a big part. Is it a platoon moving down the road or a division.

Bad weather is miserable, uncomfortable, depressing which is perfect in the right circumstances.

Like the new "combat delay" maybe there should be a "mud delay" that increases with the more movement through the hex.

[charlie0311]

Thread turns interesting, KWG especially. Still using topical meds for "jungle rot", nee, "foot rot", getting close to 50 years now.

Bad weather, appallingly bad, is the friend of very highly trained assault infantry.

[vonFelty]

Well, the streets were most likely bombed or arty shelled into oblivion so its quite a mess anyways when you think about it.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: No idea

It just struck me when trying to attack Leningrad port. As I said, if the supply system doesnt take into account the mud season then I understand you get a penalty to attack even in urban areas, as an indirect way of representing the logistic difficulties during mud season. If the supply system took into account the mud season, then the logistic difficulties would have already been taken into account and an exception should be made for attacking into urban areas.

but the supply system takes full account of mud so I struggle to work out what you are trying to argue?

watch your truck use go through the roof and effective supply ranges contract. You don't get a direct combat penalty, but you will struggle to keep your army properly supplied

edit: I also come back to my point that you may well be misunderstanding the nature of urbanisation in the USSR in the 1940s. I visited Leningrad in the early 1980s and it was quite a shock to realise you didn't have to go far out of the city centre to reach hard packed roads and not much beyond that the ground was bare earth. It would have been worse in 1941.

So the supply system takes de "mud season" into account? Good to know. Then I think attacking into urban areas should have no penalty (1/8 of your CV is a HUGE penalty) or at least that penalty should be (in urban areas) far smaller (to reflect the amount of paved roads present in urban areas, even taking into account that we are talking about 40s Russia)

[KWG]

ORIGINAL: vonFelty

Well, the streets were most likely bombed or arty shelled into oblivion so its quite a mess anyways when you think about it.

Good point. In the new combat delay movement in WitW, that will carry over to WitE, units moving through a hex that has seen combat are slowed.
If not already implemented then urban areas should have a even higher combat delay due to rubble. Especially for mobile units.