Weather

[boudi]

My opponent launches a powerful attack against my Japanese fleet. I lose a CV, many battleships and heavy cruisers.
I know that my counter-attack, with my aircraft carriers, will be devastating.
But the weather, storms everywhere, prevents me from launching it...
Bad luck, because of the weather...

[taffjones]

In my experience the weather will always favour your opponent doesn't matter if its the AI or a PBEM game.

There was a discussion on it a while back with some good suggestions, about reducing air attack by different % for rain, snow, storms etc.

Which I think is a good idea at the moment if you have bad weather and your opponent has good weather it can turn the game completely regardless of what you do.

[boudi]

No you're right of course. But this was REALLY not the time for bad weather anywhere: this was the turning point in the Pacific Naval War.

[Mithrilotter]

My preference has always been having for the same weather for both sides during the same turn. Some other people believe that this gives the second player an advantage by knowing exactly what the weather will be.

But I feel that decisive major naval battles can be decided by the random luck of the weather, not by player strategy or skill. There are also some important land battles, for example a Sea Lion invasion of England that can be decided by random good and bad weather turns (good weather for the Allies and bad weather grounding the Luftwaffe). Therefore, it is my observation that the game can sometimes be won or lost, not by good strategy or skill, but by timely good or bad weather favoring one side.

In conclusion, I believe that the fairness benefit of same weather turns outweighs any second player intelligence advantage.

[ThunderLizard11]

Agree weather is too much all or nothing - of course it was IRL but should be less so in PBEM match.

[boudi]

I agree with this :

"In conclusion, I believe that the fairness benefit of same weather turns outweighs any second player intelligence advantage."

[Zeckke]

Weather is all about this game, the weather always has to be good for allys.

weather has to be worst for axis, as it was in 1939-1945

as always i say, in naval battles....... axis must strike first.

[Hubert Cater]

My preference has always been having for the same weather for both sides during the same turn.

The problem as I see it is that there really isn't a 'same turn' mechanism at play here, e.g. something along the lines of both players plot their moves, and the game then resolves the moves simultaneously. Rather we have something like chess, where player A moves, then player B moves, and at some point the weather needs to be re-calculated.

If the game plays like this:

A
B
A
B
A
B

We have a few options for when to re-calculate the weather:

1) (current setup)

A
re-calculate weather (e.g. may or may not change)
B
re-calculate weather
A
re-calculate weather
B
re-calculate weather


2)

A
B
re-calculate weather
A
B
re-calculate weather
A
B
re-calculate weather


If the desire is to have the same weather on the same turn, option 2) works when A goes first and B goes second. But it will not always work when B goes first and A goes second.

e.g. an example of A goes first and B goes second:

A - Germany performs Sealion
B - UK can respond with the same weather
re-calculate weather

e.g. an example of B goes first and A goes second:

B - Allies launch D-Day
re-calculate weather
A - Axis might have bad weather on their response turn


I'm still open to suggestions, it's just that if the desire is to have same weather for the same turn, how does the issue go away anytime player B attacks as there will be turns that player A will not necessarily be able to respond with the same weather etc.

Arguably, if wanting to switch to option 2), it's not just that the second player has an advantage of knowing the weather that will be a factor, they will, it's that statistically speaking the second player (player B) will have the same weather guaranteed as player A, much more often than player A will have relative to player B, e.g. if attacking and being able to respond with the same weather is the primary concern.

[boudi]

Great post.

I didn't realise that even adjusting the same weather for the same round doesn't solve anything. In my case the attacker being player B, I find myself in the D Day hypothesis.

All I had to do was reconnoiter with my subs and destroyers and attack first.

[Mithrilotter]

Thank you Hubert. You have very nicely and clearly set out the issues.

The base 1939, 1942 and 1943 campaigns all start with the Axis player moving first. The Axis player is clearly on the offensive in the 1939 and 1942 games. The 1943 game is somewhat mixed as to the initiative, although the Axis still moves first. Only the 1944 game has the Allied player moving first. The 1939 game is the most common multiplayer game. In my opinion, having the same weather turns (or Option 2) is most weather fair for the 1939 and 1942 games. Even if having same weather turns actually doesn't improve the weather fairness in the later campaigns, the weather situation would still be no different that is currently is now for all campaign games. Historically, the Axis was fooled by weather during D-Day anyway.

So if changing to same weather turns improves the weather fairness of most games and does no harm at all to the later campaigns or turns, I would still prefer to change to same weather turns (or Option 2). A partial improvement is better than no improvement at all. As General Patton once said, "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow".

[Elessar2]

My preference has always been having for the same weather for both sides during the same turn. Some other people believe that this gives the second player an advantage by knowing exactly what the weather will be.

A bit confused-I had always assumed that the FIRST player would have the advantage, since he would be able to do all of his moves knowing what his opponent's weather will be and thus preparing accordingly. For example, if it is rainy, and he has more surface ships vs. carriers than his opponent, he knows he can charge in with them, safe in the knowledge that they cannot be bombed on the opponent's turn.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

A bit confused-I had always assumed that the FIRST player would have the advantage, since he would be able to do all of his moves knowing what his opponent's weather will be and thus preparing accordingly. For example, if it is rainy, and he has more surface ships vs. carriers than his opponent, he knows he can charge in with them, safe in the knowledge that they cannot be bombed on the opponent's turn.

Exactly!
Just is what I thought if the same weather is done for the following turn (Allies).

At least for me...I like the unpredictability of the current weather model. Sure I have had 'bad' luck...but also good. Getting to know the weather zones, the probability of a certain kind of weather in a particular zone and the season is fascinating to me.

For example...I have parked ships along the Japanese coast during winter hoping that snow or rain might protect them from carrier attack till I can scramble up a maneuver to counter an incursion. Also, the boundaries of these different weather zones depending on the season and probable weather types can have interesting outcomes.

Anyway, this is my humble opinion...I like it as it stands.

On a different weather topic though, I think the weather in the USSR in winter should have higher chances of being more severe. Seen too many nice spring like days in November and December.

[Taifun]

During WWII the belligerent Nations made great efforts to have accurate weather forecast to plan offensives (via subs, planes etc...). It would be useful if the game provided a small window showing the weather % for the next turn for both sides. This should be not to difficult to program and will enrich the game greatly.

[Hubert Cater]

So if changing to same weather turns improves the weather fairness of most games and does no harm at all to the later campaigns or turns, I would still prefer to change to same weather turns (or Option 2). A partial improvement is better than no improvement at all. As General Patton once said, "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow".

Thanks, and just to ensure I understand correctly, if we were to go with Option 2), the Allies will always have the same follow up weather as the Axis 100% of the time, but the Axis will not necessarily have the same follow up weather as the Allies.

Are we sure this is really desirable?

For example, D-Day example is just one case, and you are right it is later in the game, but it really will be the case for whenever the Allies attack, whether in Africa, North Africa, China, at sea, e.g. at any point in the game and even while the Axis may be attacking elsewhere on the map at the same time, the Axis will not be guaranteed to have follow up weather that is the same.

In my mind, it just feels that Option 1) is potentially more fair as the conditions are a bit more random for both sides, e.g. sometimes you'll have the same weather, sometimes not etc., and ideally that evens out over time.

Option 1) also feels like it works well enough for any campaign or scenario or even when the context of the campaign or scenario changes too, e.g. we avoid having to work around (on the design side) any one sided potential bias that is built in by default etc.

[Hubert Cater]

During WWII the belligerent Nations made great efforts to have accurate weather forecast to plan offensives (via subs, planes etc...). It would be useful if the game provided a small window showing the weather % for the next turn for both sides. This should be not to difficult to program and will enrich the game greatly.

Right now there is already the pre-definited % chances as set in the Editor, so I am thinking just showing this would suffice?

Maybe a short range, e.g. next turn (opponent turn), and long range, e.g. what your next turn (2 turns from now) forecast percentages would be?

Maybe a mouse hover tool option to select and then hovering over any particular weather zone will show what the percentages are?

Just suggesting this as there are quite a few weather zones that just woudn't fit in a single window etc.

Not sure if or when something like this could be implemented, but it could be something to consider for us for down the road at some point.

[Mithrilotter]

I would really like to see weather predictions added. There are rainy seasons in Burma and in the Solomons Islands that ground aircraft turn after turn. It would be nice to better understand when they begin and end.

I also agree that the weather in Winter in the Soviet Union in the game seems too nice compared with what I have read historically.

What is so unreasonable about sea battles being resolved with the same weather? I have experienced too many sea battles in the Pacific where one side gets good weather for their aircraft while the other side's aircraft is grounded on their turn. When did that ever happen during any major Pacific sea battle?

I had one game where during Sea Lion, the weather was consistently bad during the Axis turns and good during the Allied turns. Bad Weather luck decided that game.

[ThunderLizard11]

One annoying thing I'd add is the Russian winter event. Thit hit in my last game in March '42 and killed my game. A PBEM match should not be determine by random weather events.

[BillRunacre]

One annoying thing I'd add is the Russian winter event. Thit hit in my last game in March '42 and killed my game. A PBEM match should not be determine by random weather events.

Its timing has to have some randomness to it because people will invade the USSR from anytime between the winter of 1939 and spring 1942, and some of the more competitive players will attempt to remove Axis forces from the affected zones when they think the winter event triggers are about to be attained, in order to minimize the impact on their forces. So if its (slightly) random nature were reduced then these players would find it much easier to game the system.

So while I sympathise, I'm struggling to think of how we could change this. Suggestions are of course welcome!

[BillRunacre]

What is so unreasonable about sea battles being resolved with the same weather? I have experienced too many sea battles in the Pacific where one side gets good weather for their aircraft while the other side's aircraft is grounded on their turn. When did that ever happen during any major Pacific sea battle?

This would be a tough one to implement because in a turn-based game that has weather changes, there will always be a turn when one side has different weather to the previous.

However, I can see that if the weather always changed after the second (generally Allied) player's turn then you would at least know when it might change, but I think that would be the best that changing the weather system could offer?

[LoneRunner]

I think the problem with weather in WaW is not that it changes, but that it's all or nothing. Especially for the Axis in Russia. or the Allies in the Med and France, or sea battles in the Pacific.

As the Germans attacking Moscow or Perm, I've gone from a raging blizzard on my turn to a warm sunny day on the Russian turn. In the Med as Allies my whole air force is socked in rain or dust storms which clears to sunny skies during the German turn. And that frequently happens over and over, month after month. Suddenly the game is decided not on good strategy but the luck of weather. And it's frustrating to lose or win a game on pure luck.

I think the effects of weather should be more gradual. Rain/fog, dust storms should result in 50-75% air effectiveness. Not a total shutdown. During summer, rain can lead to clear weather or storms. Storms may result in a total shut down of air. However, the probability of storms should be very low, like maybe 10%. And storms can lead to more storms or rain or mud, not clear weather.

During winter, clear can lead to snow. Snow should result in 50% air effectiveness. Snow can lead to blizzards or clear or frozen. Blizzards may result in a total shut down of air but like storms, the probability of blizzards should be very low. Blizzards can lead to more blizzard or snow or frozen, not clear.

Making the effects of weather more gradual and not black or white would remove a lot of the luck out of the game and make the effects of weather more realistic.