What's going on at the end of winter?

[von Beanie]

OK, so you have a blizzard going for months and the snow gets deeper over time. How does it disappear? I've lived in snow climates for much of my life and I've always watched it melt. To melt during the day requires it to be above freezing. And that causes mud, not "snow" conditions, especially if the snow is several feet deep. Even if it refreezes at night, it is only a mush. It's always a big mess outside until everything starts to dry out a week or two after the snow is gone (except for the north-facing slopes).

In both of my ongoing games (started with 1.30) I've had major German offensives strike me at the end of the first year blizzard in "snow" conditions. Somehow the deep snow disappeared but mud didn't form! It is nice that the Germans are recovering quicker now, and will be capable of a 1942 offensive for what that's worth, but there is a good reason they didn't launch their major offensives in March. It is time to correct this major problem with the weather effects. The historic transition from the winter Soviet offensives to the mobile summer campaigns was always a slow one.

"Snow" makes sense in the autumn because freezes can harden the ground and allow movement before the snow gets too deep, but it doesn't make any sense in the spring, and especially in March.

[56ajax]

so much for being an historical game.

My opponent launched a minor offensive first turn after the Blizzard and pocketed 9 of my divisions. I was able to open the pocket but my opponent closed it again on the first MUD turn with Panzers!!!!!

Nearly chucked it in disgust.

[BletchleyGeek]

Weather modelling in WitE is certainly something that could be improved (along the air model, tactical combat, etc.) but I think people takes some stuff in the game mechanics too literally.

To be honest, a March Axis counteroffensive has been always something to worry about since First Winter rules reduced significantly the attrition due to climate and the amount of damage the Red Army could cause either directly or indirectly. With the new 1.05 rules, which affect both sides in ways we don't really understand yet, hearing reports of successful Red Army troops during Dec 41 - Feb 42 being crushed in March, perhaps is not literally historic, but does certainly make sense.

The advice is to plan in advance being pessimistic about the abilities of the Red Army as it leaves Blizzard season.

[ComradeP]

I don't see your point.

Blizzard is supposed to represent severe winter weather.
Snow is supposed to represent regular winter weather.

There's a big difference between -40 degrees Celsius and -1 degrees Celsius, but in order to get from one temperature to the other it doesn't need to be above 0 degrees for a single day.

The mud period is supposed to represent a period where average temperatures are above freezing.

The snow doesn't disappear from blizzard to snow conditions, but the temperatures become much more "comfortable" over time. That seems to be the point you are missing. If you've been living in areas where it snows regularly, you have obviously experienced the process for yourself.

Basically the only way for snow to become mud on land with temperatures below freezing is if large amounts of traffic regularly pass over it and little to no fresh snow falls, thus creating a mush (possibly after the snow was first stamped into being more solid and icy, before being completely broken up/dispersed). You can see the process on the average street or highway in the winter.

[vlcz]

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
"Snow" makes sense in the autumn because freezes can harden the ground and allow movement before the snow gets too deep, but it doesn't make any sense in the spring, and especially in March.

As one of the "offenders" (just launched one March ofensive against von Beanie [8D]) I must say I agree with him, March´s "snow" should be treated different from November one, if only in movement penalties..

Perhaps making a fifth weather condition , calling "Frost" the current snow and giving "Snow" harder movement penalties (to represent accumulated snow) should make the trick.[&:]

[ComradeP]

Whether the snow needs to be treated differently would depend on local weather conditions, how much snow actually fell and if there was a lot of activity in the area. The idea that "blizzard" means "deep snow" is not entirely correct. It can also just mean temperatures well below freezing.

[Q-Ball]

Historically, the Germans were able to get it together quite nicely in March 1942, so I have no problem with it.

I do think weather needs a revamp though; I think a better question is how rivers can be still frozen over after 3 weeks of mud. The ground is muddy, but rivers are frozen solid?

Makes no sense. Rivers would be the first to break-up.

[ComradeP]

That would depend on the size of the river, whether it's frozen almost all the way to its source, and whether it's still below freezing at night. The thicker the layer of ice, the longer it takes to melt. Snow itself has very little structure, it's not as solid as ice. The wind can pick it up and even slightly above zero temperatures will cause it to melt, generally (although that would also depend on the amount of sunny hours during the day).

Still, a thawing process that takes 2-3 weeks just to break up the ice or make it impossible to move across it is probably indeed a bit too slow.

[Helpless]

Currently it melts one point per mud turn and 3 points per clear, which wouldn't be too much off, imho.

For example navigation on Ladoga in 1942 started only on May 23rd. Of cause it was much North and winter was quite harsh, but it is also not so small lake.

Another example could be Volga, which is ice free ~200 days in the upper-middle flow and ~260 days in the lower flow around Astrakhan. Means that navigation start in April-May.

Possibly we may differentiate melting rates in the same way the freezing is done, i.e. make it a little faster in the southern zone.

P.S. Also you should take into account current ecological conditions when compare to what it was in the middle of last century.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Helpless
P.S. Also you should take into account current ecological conditions when compare to what it was in the middle of last century.

Interesting. It's a bit off-topic, but as a Russian you surely know: have the season transitions changed so much in 70 years?

[Helpless]

It's a bit off-topic, but as a Russian you surely know: have the season transitions changed so much in 70 years?

..some Austrians may know it better [;)] http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/

[Q-Ball]

Frozen solid and unnavigable are two different things, though.

Frozen Solid means men and vehicles can cross without difficulty. It's a block of ice.

Rivers full of broken ice are unnavigable....but they are not easily crossed either.

As soon as the temperature gets above freezing, though, it can become dangerous to cross. Lots of ice chunks and flows make it unnavigable, but also unpassable to men and vehicles. Frozen Lakes and Rivers become hazardous very quickly when Ice starts to crack.

I think the game models ice hazards by increasing penalties on ice levels up to "Frozen Solid". But the threshold for "Frozen Solid" is too low; even if it looks frozen solid, would you drive your car out on ice after a couple weeks of "mud"? I wouldn't. If ANY water is pooling on the surface, best to stay off that ice!

IMO, the lvl 8 should be the Frozen Solid point for ALL rivers

[Helpless]

But the threshold for "Frozen Solid" is too low; even if it looks frozen solid, would you drive your car out on ice after a couple weeks of "mud"?

Yes, it happened historically on many occasions. Not only on small rivers. You may read on Soviet offensives around Peipus in late Spring.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I think the game models ice hazards by increasing penalties on ice levels up to "Frozen Solid". But the threshold for "Frozen Solid" is too low; even if it looks frozen solid, would you drive your car out on ice after a couple weeks of "mud"? I wouldn't. If ANY water is pooling on the surface, best to stay off that ice!

Eisenstein's "Alexander Nevsky" comes to my mind. It would be SO cool to push a Waffen SS division into a lake and see it drowning

PS: Brain fart: confused Eisenstein with his most famous movie [>:]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

It's a bit off-topic, but as a Russian you surely know: have the season transitions changed so much in 70 years?

..some Austrians may know it better [;)] http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/

Impressive and unsettling map, really.

[Tarhunnas]

The Germans did launch offensives in march 1942, but not major encirclements. The combat penalties should be gone, but movement should IMHO be more penalised than it is now in spring.

[56ajax]

Like really interesting chat about snow; dont get much of it here...

but I'm trying to play an historical game...did the germans really have a counter offensive immediately after blizz....?

Oh well retreat retreat retreat and listen to the AXis bleating about how the Russians should be made to stand fight...

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

OK, so you have a blizzard going for months and the snow gets deeper over time. How does it disappear? I've lived in snow climates for much of my life and I've always watched it melt. To melt during the day requires it to be above freezing. And that causes mud, not "snow" conditions, especially if the snow is several feet deep. Even if it refreezes at night, it is only a mush. It's always a big mess outside until everything starts to dry out a week or two after the snow is gone (except for the north-facing slopes).

There's a difference between temperate winters and 'real' winters. I've lived in arctic and sub-arctic regions, and I imagine Russian winters to be similar to sub-arctic climates. It dosen't snow all winter long, piling up and melting like in typical temperate winters. In fact, it dosen't snow very much in those very cold climates, and it's not so much the snow that makes life difficult, but the cold and wind (drifting snow). That's what crippled the Wehrmacht: cold and wind, not snow.

In WITE terms, don't think of blizzard as lots of snow, but extreme cold and wind. Snow is probably the equivalent of -5 to -15 C, while blizzard likely represents -30 or -40 C (or worse). Perhaps a better term for WITE 'Blizzard' would be 'Extreme Cold'. You get a cold snap over the winter (tanks don't run and soldiers freeze), then it warms up in the spring and the temperature is 'only' -15 C, when an Army can continue fighting a little more normally.

[von Beanie]

The last thing I expected was to be challenged on the facts. Map 4.6 on p. 81 of Winters, H.A., Battling the Elements, Weather and Terrain in the Conduct of War, has a caption that reads: "Average annual maximum snow depth (centimeters and inches) taking into account both melting and compaction. Snow usually reaches its greatest depth in Russia in March." In inches, the value shown for Leningrad is 11, Moscow 19, Kiev 12, Stalingrad 8, Saratov 18, an unnamed town near Kursk, 13. Thus, much of the region where the war occurs in March 1942 and 1943 averages about a foot of snow in March. If there's a foot of snow on the ground you don't move around very fast, and that much snow always takes more than a week to melt. When it melts it forms mud. Moreover, the northern half of European Russia consists of naturally swampy soils left over from the last ice age, with very poor drainage (much like Michigan, Minnesota and parts of New England for those living there). When those soils are saturated you don't go anywhere, like the Germans learned in the fall of 1941. None of the offensive in March 42 were "mobile" offensives.  
 
All of the discussion of frigid temperatures is missing my main point. When temperatures drop to subzero values (on either scale) you adapt quickly or are crippled from exposure. By mid-December the Germans either had the winter wear and equipment they needed (taken from the Russian peasants, and both living and dead enemy soldiers) or they were debilitated. Thus, by March the frigid temperatures were not the significant limiting factor for combat, but rather the difficulty of trudging through a foot or more of snow.
 
I agree with Tarhunnas that the easiest solution would be to reduce mobility, but not combat strength, when the "snow" rolls around in the Spring. A better phrase than "Snow" would be the "Spring Thaw." In my current games I've had German offensives drive MANY hexes into my rear areas in March, just like they would in the summer. That simply isn't realistic given the ground conditions that time of year in Russia. 

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

There's a difference between temperate winters and 'real' winters. I've lived in arctic and sub-arctic regions, and I imagine Russian winters to be similar to sub-arctic climates. It dosen't snow all winter long, piling up and melting like in typical temperate winters. In fact, it dosen't snow very much in those very cold climates, and it's not so much the snow that makes life difficult, but the cold and wind (drifting snow). That's what crippled the Wehrmacht: cold and wind, not snow.

In WITE terms, don't think of blizzard as lots of snow, but extreme cold and wind.

Schmart, add some snow storms to blizzard, and then that how I'd picture it. Somehow "Blizzard 1941" for me is reminiscent of troops fighting platoon or company wise around isolated outposts, woodlines, farms, with poor visual conditions, corresponding communication and coordination issues, extreme freezing so weapons fail and vehicles need to have a fire lighted below the engine just to be able to start, dropping moral, and all the while the fear of some Siberian troops sneaking around them in the night on the wide snow-shoes, occasionally supported by some fearful tank on wide tracks (T34). That's how it is described in most German literature, and memoirs of that time. And there are many old photos from that period that help to envision such a picture.

If you think of the snow-mud problem, it wasn't only the cold that gave problems to the "overly" sophisticated, fiddly German equipment and would stop weapon mechanisms or engines from failing (once shut-off and cooling out). But ice and water also represented huge problems, even if the weather conditions (temperature, direct sun) would not lead to melting yet. If you have columns of dozens or hundreds of vehicles, some of the heavy, running over the same (dirt) highways, they themselves will cause melting and after a while you'll have a regiment stuck in a total quagmire. That would cost lots of extra fuel to get thru, and leave the element highly fatigued and surely not very combat ready.