Planes flying in bad weather - general consensus?

[Marcinos1985]

Hello,
enabling planes to fly even in a bad weather was a fundamental change to the game. What is a general consensus about it - is it good or bad? For whom? I have read contraditory opinions. And unfortunately, didn't have time to try these changes myself.
One additional question - planes were supposed to operate with reduced effectiveness in bad weather, but at the same time I read somewhere that even in bad weather they demoralize/deentrench fully even in snow/rain. Is this true? A bug or a feature? That would mean Autumn-Winter months are no longer safe heaven for USSR/China.
Best regards.

[CaesarAug]

I tend to favour the change, though with some reserve. The 50% reduced effectiveness seemingly applies only to damage, not sure about de-moralisation, and does not apply to de-entrenchment as far as I know.

The whole issue is based on changing weather patterns, whereby one side might appear to enjoy unduly good weather, while the other side does not, or not quite as often. SC are turn-based games whereby the weather remains unchanged for the duration of one player’s turn, in other words, all or nothing, and subject to change for the other player’s turn. The “imbalance” therefore of one side being able to use air force regularly while the other side the planes are grounded.

Allowing air units to perform missions in bad weather I think helps this perceived imbalance because of weather, though with a 50% reduced effectiveness. But perhaps a tweak would be to extend this reduced effectiveness to de-moralisation (if not already applied with the latest patch, or maybe even cancel it out altogether) and also cancel out any de-entrenchment effectiveness.

[petedalby]

Please see the last couple of posts on this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2&start=40

I think it's a major gain for the Axis in the early years of the game - by which time it is probably too late for the Allies if Russia has gone in '43.

[Bavre]

On land it might be a bit of a balancing issue, as it greatly favors the Axis in the first and the Allies in the second half of a game.
For carrier battles however I think the change is definitely for the better. Previously weather alone had the power to decide them, no matter what the players did.

[EarlyDoors]

Air power is more potent but its costs have not risen accordingly

It provides more bang for your buck

I think it should cost more

[Taifun]

I feel the game is imbalanced towards the Axis with these new air changes. Aircraft should not detrench and demoralize at all in rain or snow. I get the feeling that any above average Axis player can beat a veteran Allied player...

[ThunderLizard11]

Seems to cut both ways as Allies can hammer Western Europe with ease by '43.

[Elessar2]

Another tweak would be for consecutive turns to be linked weather-wise like adjacent zones are, increasing the likelihood of similar weather on your & opponent's turn. All bets would be off (no link) between seasons tho (incl. the "sub-seasons" as seen in the editor like late spring and such).

[Tanaka]

I feel the game is imbalanced towards the Axis with these new air changes. Aircraft should not detrench and demoralize at all in rain or snow. I get the feeling that any above average Axis player can beat a veteran Allied player...

I disagree playing as the Axis is very difficult and I am not noticing any extra advantages. I was not sure about the changes but now I see how it keeps things fair and am now for it.

[IIo4Tu]

I would like to note that a 50% penalty for bad weather often does not allow bombers to do something useful, for example, to urgently finish off some unit, although they themselves easily receive retaliatory injuries.
Thus, those who vote for the exclusion of the possibility of demoralization and destruction of trenches in bad weather makes it pointless to use aviation, especially for the axis, the allies will at least always have strategic bombers and an aircraft fleet.

[James Taylor]

While I like the new ability of aircraft to perform missions in adverse weather conditions, I do think there should be a consequence for their use.

According to historical testimonies more aircraft were lost due to operational mishaps than to actual combat.

Therefor with that in mind, SC air units should have a greater chance of sustaining losses when engaging in sorties in bad weather turns.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

While I like the new ability of aircraft to perform missions in adverse weather conditions, I do think there should be a consequence for their use.

According to historical testimonies more aircraft were lost due to operational mishaps than to actual combat.

Therefor with that in mind, SC air units should have a greater chance of sustaining losses when engaging in sorties in bad weather turns.

This actually sounds pretty fair. I worked in the Arctic for a few decades. Equipment broke all the time in the winter. I mean constantly. Metal and rubber are brittle. Oil and other petroleum products can turn to jelly. Also mishaps and accidents peaked during the frigid season. Lack of visibility was a huge contributing factor...whether rain, sleet or snow. Combine that all with shorter daylight hours in the higher latitudes.

Same could be said concerning the tropics with the heat and monsoon weather. Dust storms in the desert. Rain and fog over England.

Yeah...good rationale for sustaining higher losses to aircraft due to operating in bad weather.

[Taifun]

Seems to cut both ways as Allies can hammer Western Europe with ease by '43.

By that time the USSR is gone...

Best way to find out is to play mirror games as in the ongoing WAW tournament. Games between same level players will be interesting to analyze for the developers.

[Tanaka]

While I like the new ability of aircraft to perform missions in adverse weather conditions, I do think there should be a consequence for their use.

According to historical testimonies more aircraft were lost due to operational mishaps than to actual combat.

Therefor with that in mind, SC air units should have a greater chance of sustaining losses when engaging in sorties in bad weather turns.

This actually sounds pretty fair. I worked in the Arctic for a few decades. Equipment broke all the time in the winter. I mean constantly. Metal and rubber are brittle. Oil and other petroleum products can turn to jelly. Also mishaps and accidents peaked during the frigid season. Lack of visibility was a huge contributing factor...whether rain, sleet or snow. Combine that all with shorter daylight hours in the higher latitudes.

Same could be said concerning the tropics with the heat and monsoon weather. Dust storms in the desert. Rain and fog over England.

Yeah...good rationale for sustaining higher losses to aircraft due to operating in bad weather.

Agreed. This sounds sensible.

[Marcinos1985]

Lots of good points. I especially like those increased losses in bad weather, logical and give players a choice.
Are there ary tournament attendees, who would like to give some feedback after mirror match(es)? Playing both sides gives good perspective on things.
I also wonder if the meta adjusted somehow, e.g. USSR pursues AA more aggresively?
Best regards.

[EarlyDoors]

It also appears that paradrops are unaffected by weather

[OldCrowBalthazor]

My take on the current bad weather air mechanic with the latest patch.

>This change: Air units can now recon and attack in bad weather, all attacks in bad weather will be at 50% effectiveness.

Air gets full demoralizing and detrenchment. Should be 50% chance of inflicting said malus or none.
Also..I think air units should get attrition of 1 or 2 if a player chooses to launch air ops in rain or snow. (Not sure if the game engine can do this)

Airborne can in fact do landing in Rain or Snow. Should not be allowed. The Soviets historically were able to pull this off but the weather would have to be frozen...so clear but with the malus of Frozen.

The only benefit I see atm with this patch is it makes carrier battles more fair. That's it though.

Thus as things stand now...the Axis has an overwhelming advantage if applied correctly against the Soviets from Barbarossa on through 1943 at the very least.

This problem (IMO) also links into another issue I brought up before. The weather in the western USSR from Oct through Mar each year.

I think from Oct to March no 'Clear' Weather other than Frozen should happen at all. Mud, Frozen, Rain and particularly Snow should happen. Frozen is fine as the Axis can move easily if they desire since the ground is like concrete. Attacks of course are reduced dramatically when operating air or ground units while frozen. This is realistic. What isn't is clear summer weather in November or Dec. For either side. I have been repeatedly surprised with my Soviet plans thinking "Oh its November next turn...at least bad weather of some type is going to happen". Next Axis turn= The Germans making garlands of Tulips and Begonias for their victorious vanguards.

Seen this every year in every WaW match I have played the last few years. Even felt bad as the Axis when this happened. (I'm a sportsman btw)

Anyways, I brought up the USSR winter weather issue again on this air mechanic thread because it directly compounds the issues raised about the latter.

My humble opinion of course.

[Taxman66]

How about reverting the air rules to the previous version with the exception of continuing to allow the half effective air missions in water 'storm' hexes (and possibly those coastal water hexes that show rain)?

[MilObserver]

Hi,

I like the 50% effective flying in bad weather. The change feels consistent with ground combat in bad weather and gives a more realistic flow to air operations (e.g. not all or nothing).

I echo / support the following great points from other posters:
- De-entrenchment and de-moralization in bad weather should be 50%
- The change also enhances carrier combat. Helps keep surface combat in bad weather more honest.
- There should be a risk of taking a point(s) of Ops damage (be nice if this %/amount could be Editor set).

Note I only play the AI.

Have a great holiday all.

[CaesarAug]

My take on the current bad weather air mechanic with the latest patch.

>This change: Air units can now recon and attack in bad weather, all attacks in bad weather will be at 50% effectiveness.

Air gets full demoralizing and detrenchment. Should be 50% chance of inflicting said malus or none.
Also..I think air units should get attrition of 1 or 2 if a player chooses to launch air ops in rain or snow. (Not sure if the game engine can do this)

Airborne can in fact do landing in Rain or Snow. Should not be allowed. The Soviets historically were able to pull this off but the weather would have to be frozen...so clear but with the malus of Frozen.

The only benefit I see atm with this patch is it makes carrier battles more fair. That's it though.

Thus as things stand now...the Axis has an overwhelming advantage if applied correctly against the Soviets from Barbarossa on through 1943 at the very least.

This problem (IMO) also links into another issue I brought up before. The weather in the western USSR from Oct through Mar each year.

I think from Oct to March no 'Clear' Weather other than Frozen should happen at all. Mud, Frozen, Rain and particularly Snow should happen. Frozen is fine as the Axis can move easily if they desire since the ground is like concrete. Attacks of course are reduced dramatically when operating air or ground units while frozen. This is realistic. What isn't is clear summer weather in November or Dec. For either side. I have been repeatedly surprised with my Soviet plans thinking "Oh its November next turn...at least bad weather of some type is going to happen". Next Axis turn= The Germans making garlands of Tulips and Begonias for their victorious vanguards.

Seen this every year in every WaW match I have played the last few years. Even felt bad as the Axis when this happened. (I'm a sportsman btw)

Anyways, I brought up the USSR winter weather issue again on this air mechanic thread because it directly compounds the issues raised about the latter.

My humble opinion of course.

Yes, these considerations seem very reasonable and balanced. I would add this, however: manual air recon missions (land and carrier-based) should either not be allowed at all in bad weather… or allowed but with a 50% chance of spotting.