Winter Land Movement

[pzgndr]

Winter Land Movement: All costs for movement are doubled.

I got a rules question about this and did a little research, then pinged Marshall for his read as to why this was done. There was no option like this in the original EiA rules and the EiH v4.0 rule 9.5 reads quite differently:

During “winter” months, movement into mountains and across crossing arrows are increased by one, while costs for marsh are decreased by one. Winter also restricts crossing arrow movement to “5” factors crossing that arrow in each direction. EXCEPTION: The Dardanelles crossing arrow is not affected.

I looked back at some old discussions and the #1 concern was how the EiANW option would restrict winter campaigning, preventing corps with movement 3 from entering mountains with move cost of 2 doubled to 4, etc. Looking at the EiH rule, it appears much more reasonable and perhaps the EiANW option should be revised accordingly. Maybe it's still too much for some players to accept, but perhaps reasonable enough to make the option more viable to many who choose not to use it currently.

Thoughts?

[Skanvak]

I wonder what is the most historical one. I will favor this one. Thought as first reading the EiH rule would make a better optional rule.

[Dancing Bear]

Pzgndr
Rule might be a misinterpretation of the original EIA rule, that it costs twice as much to supply troops in winter (i.e. instead of $1 to supply a unit one area away, it is $2). So the cost for supply is doubled, not the number of movement points.

I quite like rule #2 for movement in winter. It seems to make a lot of sense, and be a big improvement as a good winter option. If programming the thing about winter crossing arrows is difficult, then I suggest that crossing arrows can not be used at all in winter (Except the Dardanelles).

It is too bad there is no rule that reduces the movement of ships transporting corps in winter due to the difficulty sailing in winter conditions (at least in the Atlantic). Can anyone think of a sea borne invasion that was done in winter in the Atlantic?

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
.. I suggest that crossing arrows can not be used at all in winter (Except the Dardanelles).

During early 1809 two Russian armies crossed the Baltic and the Gulf of Finland. One under Barclay de Tolly towards Finland, and the other under Bagration who crossed the frozen Gulf of Bothnia to a point about 70km north of Stockholm.

These aren't crossing arrows, but should perhaps be considered so in winter!

In terms of the others:

Channel -- just about impassable in winter.
Cadiz - North Africa -- seasons don't matter too much.
Corsica - Sardinia -- strong tidal flows are the issue here. Is crossable for some of the year, not for others.
Denmark - Sweden -- can occasionally be crossed on foot during winter.

Can anyone think of a sea borne invasion that was done in winter in the Atlantic?

In the area that is covered by the EIA map -- no.

You couldn't mount a seaborne invasion to or from most of the French Atlantic coast for most of the year anyway. The area just south of La Rochelle and parts of the Asturias coast (northern Spain) would be two exceptions to that.

[Dancing Bear]

Well, if there is going to be a change to the winter movement option anyways to address Pzgrndr's question, why not make all the the Lille crossing arrow impassable during winter (and maybe the one between the Britain and Ireland) as well? This would be easier to code than the EIH rule with the 5 factor limit.

The others are less important, so it probably has little practical implication if they are changed by winter.

For the historical lack of naval invasions on the Atlantic coast in winter, I guess we could double naval supply costs for invasion supply in winter in the Atlantic, and reduce the movement of transport fleets to zero in winter when they are transporting corps when they start in a port on the Atlantic ocean?

[pzgndr]

I'll note that the EiH v4.0 also has rules for weather zones (9.2), weather determination (9.3) for October through April, mud (9.4) and storms at sea (9.6):
 [left]9.4 MUD[/left][left]During mud, all movement costs (except marsh) are increased by one. This includes crossing arrows and crossing rivers into enemy occupied areas. Mud also restricts crossing arrow movement to “5” factors crossing that arrow in each direction. [font="times new roman"]EXCEPTION: [/font][font="times new roman"]The Dardanelles crossing [/font][font="times new roman"]arrow is not affected[/font][font="times new roman"].[/font][/left][font="times new roman"][/font] [left]9.6 STORMS AT SEA[/left][left]Storms at sea may be indicated when a roll for weather is made between October and April. If storms at sea are indicated, roll D10, “1-4” Atlantic, “5-7” Baltic, “8-10” Mediterranean. The border between the Atlantic and Mediterranean is between “S30” and “S31”, the border between the Atlantic and Baltic is between “S7” and “S15”.[/left][left]All Fleets not in port at the end of the month, in the indicated sea zone are “attacked” by the storm, causing damage equal to a 10 factor attack on the 2-1 table to each Fleet (roll modified by “+1” during December, January or February). These attacks are resolved immediately, with damaged ships forced to make way to a friendly port as per retreat of damaged ships after combat. Fleets may shelter during a storm in Neutral minor countries or Kingdoms to avoid the effects of a storm.[/left] 
This storms at sea rule doesn't explicitly prevent invasions but certainly makes them more problematic.  If Marshall is willing to revise the winter land movement option to be more consistent with the EiH rule, I don't see why this option couldn't be more generally expanded into a weather option to include all of these effects.  The biggest challenge would be to recode the map for four weather zones (Arctic, Caucasus, Europe, Mediterranean), but a simple compromise could be to keep the winter zone as is (but include non-Mediterranean sea zones) and apply the winter rule during Dec-Jan-Feb and the mud rule during Oct-Nov and Mar-Apr.  The storms at sea rule could apply Oct-Apr with the +1 modifier Dec-Feb. 
 
These seem to be reasonable weather effects, unlike the current doubling of all movement costs.  I also agree that if coding a 5-factor limit is a challenge then simply restricting all crossing arrow movement during winter (except Dardanelles) should be acceptable. 

[easterner]

The French landing at Fishguard, Wales 2/22/1797 was successfully made by 1400 (1 Mil factor, 4 light ships) under the command of American Col. Bill Tate. Unfortunately the main landing of 15,000 (7 INF) at Bantry Bay, Ireland under Marshall Hoche was canceled by bad weather. Tate surrendered two days later.

[Dancing Bear]

Pzgndr, these rules would be a great option for winter.

Easterner, thanks for the example, I guess that this supports the notion that winter invasions are likely to stay in port. Maybe only light ships can pull off a winter invasion? The transports simply don't have the manoeuvrability and speed to support winter landings in rough seas.