Mud, and combat in mud

[Jajusha]

The manual covers up the extra MP costs of mud terrain, the fortification building penalty, air mission impact, replacement penalty but there is no mention on the penalties of mud on attack/defense.

Looking at the CV numbers in the combat report, one can see that mud gives a "divide by 8 effect". In my current GC-42, i had alot of skirmishes in a previous mud turn, and the /8 modifier affected both forces (attacking and defending), meaning, a battle that would normaly be won in clear weather gave a similar result in the mud. But just now, some turns after, the /8 modifier was only affecting me, the attacker.

So, my questions are:
When does the /8 only affect the attacker? Is it seasonal? Only in some months? Is it dependant on a leader roll?
When does the /8 affect both players?
Does it ever only affect the defender?

[Altaris]

I think it just affects the attacker all the time. You may have seen your opponent simply fail a bunch of leadership rolls and end up with a net /8 result. That happens to the Soviets sometimes

[Jajusha]

ORIGINAL: Altaris

I think it just affects the attacker all the time. You may have seen your opponent simply fail a bunch of leadership rolls and end up with a net /8 result. That happens to the Soviets sometimes

My oponent is the german :p

[Tarhunnas]

I must say I think the 1/8 thing feels a bit artifical. In my opinion it should be the supply effects that are the main difficulty with attacking in mud, with maybe a slight disadvantage to atacking CV. Without knowing the intricacies of the combat system in detail, I would say it would feel instinctively better to increase the supply penalties of mud dramatically and make the CV reduction like 2/3 or something like that.

[squatter]

Yes, well I argued elswhere that mud being 8x more difficult to attack in as compared to blizzard seemed somewhat strange, but those who responded felt it was perfectly accurate as is.
 
I'm perfectly on board with it being more difficult to attack during mud than clear, but I'm less convinced by mud being considered the only weather condition in which it is harder - since when was blizzard considered no more difficult conditions to stage large scale offensive operations (lets say in the case of a series of prepared attacked up and down a static line, for which there is no penalty) than a sunny summer's day?

[Aditia]

because men and artillery will actually move in the cold?

[squatter]

Ever been in a blizzard?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Aditia

because men and artillery will actually move in the cold?

Can be tough moving though waist deep snowdrifts, for example, not to mention the difficulties of moving on ice.

[Scook_99]

Western Europe mud, 1/8th is not realistic. In Russia......the Rasputitsa is miserable. Here is a quick link, there is better sources you can read, but this is a fast one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa

Operations were generally suspended during these times, with the exception of localization (ie: very small attacks).

[Panama]

My friends and I argued this bit years ago. Here's what we did. Go out to your locally freshly plowed field and walk across it just after a good heavy rain. If your legs don't fall off after a couple hundred yards you should consider a triathalon. It sticks to everything, most notably your feet. Then imagine several hundred vehicles mashing it up and making it deeper. It's not impossible. You'll just wish it was. Try carrying a rifle and 50 pound back pack. Drop to your stomach. Get up. Do it a few times on your trek through misery. We had one guy carry a pipe that weighed as much as a mortar tube. [:D]

[squatter]

My issue isnt that mud has the penalty, but that blizzard doesnt have any (after first winter)

[Panama]

I would have to assume that having looked at what happened during the winter campaigns, winter weather had a net zero effect after the first one. That would seem to be appropriate.