Persistence is a virtue - Encircled (sov) vs Kamil (Axis)

[KamilS]

cente

[KamilS]

south

[TulliusDetritus]

Random weather during the Blitzkrieg is very dangerous... to Germans [:(] You are advancing, always advancing (panzers forward, infantry behind)... then bang!... mud... the white sharks smell the blood and... [:)]

[Mynok]

More ouch....when did you stack them? I didn't see that in the screen shot. That might have been a mistake. I doubt he could have gotten enough CV to win against all of them separately.

[KamilS]

Mynok

More ouch....when did you stack them? I didn't see that in the screen shot. That might have been a mistake. I doubt he could have gotten enough CV to win against all of them separately.

Check out end of previous turn. They weren't stacked. Encircled's attacks pushed them back into one hex.

[Mynok]

So he got multiple attacks off...very unfortunate.

[KamilS]

Turn 6 - movement

In the north and centre I hoped to create pocket north of Witebsk, but neither of Army Groups managed to achieve its objectives. Most of attacks were repulsed. Soviets were too strong and too brave. In one place, south east from Witebsk, my attacks were beaten back 10 times. At least I crossed upper Dnepr.

That failure forced me to alter my plans. In the north and centre encircling ambitions were set aside, I limited my goals. New objective was territory, hopefully only for short while.

Situation in the south was much more favourable. Powerful panzer forces, smashed through Enclircled's defences, and created minor pocket just south west from Cherkasy. It practically gave me access to whole Ukraine west of Dnepr. Next turn I will try to force crossing.

Generally speaking situation is bad.

[KamilS]

centre

[KamilS]

south

[KamilS]

Strength of 3rd Pz Group at the end of turn 6

[KamilS]

Casualties at the end of turn 6

[Ketza]

Boy mud in that first summer is such a killer. Makes me think there should maybe be a light mud or something in between.

[Ridgeway]

This is why I do not play with random weather. A mud turn in the summer probably dooms the Germans, because it gives the Russians a breather right when they need it the most. Also, since the Russians can move by rail so well, they are not nearly as hamstrung as the Germans by the MP penalties. Finally, each player (but primarily the Russian) gets the benefit of a lot of historical hindsight -- avoid encirclements/pointless counterattacks, screen the Finns with weak units etc. Non-random weather balances this a bit by allowing the German (and the Rusian for that matter) to plan a little better. This is particularly necessary given the all-or-nothing quality of the weather, and the "instant" snapbacks units get when mud changes to clear or blizzard to snow.

One other thing -- attacking from a clear hex into a mud hex seems to epitomize "gamey".

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway

Non-random weather balances this a bit by allowing the German (and the Rusian for that matter) to plan a little better. This is particularly necessary given the all-or-nothing quality of the weather, and the "instant" snapbacks units get when mud changes to clear or blizzard to snow.

One other thing -- attacking from a clear hex into a mud hex seems to epitomize "gamey".

That historical weather allows the Germans to "plan a little better" is quite the understatement. While I agree with your general criticisms of the weather mechanics, I don't see how giving the Germans perfect foresight into exact weather conditions is the solution.

Currently with random weather, you seem guaranteed to get a turn of mud within the first several turns, which is rather odd since there is no mud in the summer with the historical weather. I've seen the explanations about "summer thunderstorms" but find them rather unconvincing (no such storms in the summer of 1941?).

[KamilS]

Ketza

Boy mud in that first summer is such a killer. Makes me think there should maybe be a light mud or something in between.

I absolutely agree, plus maybe twice as much weather zones and some correlation between one area and other adjacent to it.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

That historical weather allows the Germans to "plan a little better" is quite the understatement. While I agree with your general criticisms of the weather mechanics, I don't see how giving the Germans perfect foresight into exact weather conditions is the solution.

Currently with random weather, you seem guaranteed to get a turn of mud within the first several turns, which is rather odd since there is no mud in the summer with the historical weather. I've seen the explanations about "summer thunderstorms" but find them rather unconvincing (no such storms in the summer of 1941?).

Why is perfect foresight a problem regarding weather? The players have perfect foresight for lots of things that their historical counterparts did not -- reinforcement schedules, production schedules/abilities, limitations on the Finns etc.

Random weather does not add any realism, and seems almost guaranteed to ruin the game early on. I don't see the point.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Ridgeway
Why is perfect foresight a problem regarding weather? The players have perfect foresight for lots of things that their historical counterparts did not -- reinforcement schedules, production schedules/abilities, limitations on the Finns etc.

Random weather does not add any realism, and seems almost guaranteed to ruin the game early on. I don't see the point.

The effects of weather are much more pervasive than the other factors you mention, and players could reasonably be expected to know in advance about reinforcements, production, etc., as such things were planned long in advance. As to the Finns, the fact is that IMO the game just seriously undermodels all political/diplomatic aspects--see the long seperate thread on whether there should be a moral loss if Moscow falls (I think there should be some effect, or at least the possibility of some effect).

And while I agree that mud should be less likely in the first summer, and that it would be good if there was some "light mud" condition, to claim that it "ruins" a game is IMO an overstatement.

[Ketza]

When I first starting learning against the AI I played with random weather and after a few games where "mud" hit in July I quickly discounted ever playing with random weather again. The main reason was the severe impact on the Axis that mud has on the first campaign season. There is no other time in the game where a random event can occur that causes such a major impact on the way the overall game plays out. It can literally mean the difference on whether or not Leningrad falls or factories are cut off. At a minimum it loses a turn (possibly two if the Soviet player takes advantage of the situation) of forward momentum from a very tight timetable.

To me the argument of summer thunderstorms has some merit but consider the fact that a few afternoon thunderstorms have the same impact on the game as a week of soaking rain in April. This does not make sense and if there cannot be a happy medium such as "light mud" I would rather not play with random weather.

[Aussiematto]

I am in several games with a mix of random and non-random weather. Conclusion is that 1 turn of snow during blizzard does much less harm to Russians than 1 turn of mud for Germans during summer. I will probably stick with non-random weather for now (which was not my initial view) on the basis that it is consistent with a whole lot of other 'fixed' things (finns, etc). In other words, because so much else is historically accurate (if represented in a gamelike way, eg no move line is not real, but the reluctance of finns to do stuff in Russia itself was real and the only way to easily simulate that is with the forcefield white line). I think we either need more randomness all around, OR stick with fixed historicity.

My pet idea concerns the withdrawal schedule. Germans should be able to burn AP to not withdraw a unit (eg political fight between south/west and east fronts) or to substitute a unit. Imagine the benefit of having those fallschirmjager in 1942, for a key encirclement!

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: majeloz

I am in several games with a mix of random and non-random weather. Conclusion is that 1 turn of snow during blizzard does much less harm to Russians than 1 turn of mud for Germans during summer. I will probably stick with non-random weather for now (which was not my initial view) on the basis that it is consistent with a whole lot of other 'fixed' things (finns, etc). In other words, because so much else is historically accurate (if represented in a gamelike way, eg no move line is not real, but the reluctance of finns to do stuff in Russia itself was real and the only way to easily simulate that is with the forcefield white line). I think we either need more randomness all around, OR stick with fixed historicity.

My pet idea concerns the withdrawal schedule. Germans should be able to burn AP to not withdraw a unit (eg political fight between south/west and east fronts) or to substitute a unit. Imagine the benefit of having those fallschirmjager in 1942, for a key encirclement!

I think that is pretty dead on. The withdrawal idea is interesting, but I suspect it would work better as delaying the withdrawal for a turn or 2, rather than allowing you to keep them forever.