Random Weather and new people.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Random Weather and new people.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Random Weather and new people.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Random Weather and new people. - 9/8/2012 12:54:43 PM

Pelton

Posts: 6702
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

The current weather tables are not based on historical weather and the chances for X weather in X zone based on past weather. 1900 - 1960

41/42 was the worst or tied for one of the worst winters in recorded history.

Based on that the weather table should be based on a very slim chance having a worse winter then 41/42.

Small chance for same then chances for better winters and spings being far more likely.

Instead the current tables have the worst winter/spring on record as the min or base line.

So winters have a small chance of being the same as 41/42.

Then a huge chance of being worse then was historically the worst weather on record.

The weather tables should be based on historical weather and not wishfull thinking to balance out other lacking parts of the ruleset.

I love the game and play it more then anyone, but the random weather tables seem to be based more on The Lord of The Rings and not historical weather. Anyone can google it and look for them selfs.

I 100% would like to play random weather games, but under the current "random" weather tables it is way to bias for allies.

Hopeffuly witw's weather tables are based on historical record and not allied bias as it would seem wite "random" weather is.

I 100% recommend buying and playing the game, but don't waste your or your friends time playing a random weather game.

_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 5 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFM9MmD_Mk&list=RDBTukSakeqr4&index=2

Post #: 1

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/8/2012 8:19:44 PM

Schmart

Posts: 657
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline

You're still basing it on hindsight. Nobody could know in 1940 what the probability of weather cycles would be in 41-45. Maybe it turns into a wetter than normal period. Maybe colder winters, maybe longer drier summers. Who can really have predicted?

The current random weather is technically only semi-random. It would be nice to have a third option: fully random. A good but more random chance that the first winter would be as bad as historical. Randomization might put the really bad winter in 42-43, or maybe save the Germans from defeat in 44-45. Of course, more randomization would lead to a better chance of mud in summer turns or a shorter summer season, so the Axis 1941 offensive might hit a bigger snag...or who knows, maybe the winter of 41-42 could have been even WORSE than historical. It can go both ways.

Still, I think too many people are focusing on the first 9 months of the campaign. Random weather will still affect the game after that. Maybe there aren't enough players who have actually played longer than 41-42 to see it's effects...

quote:

but under the current "random" weather tables it is way to bias for allies.

All they really need to do is guarrantee one snow turn in Dec 41/Jan 42 in each weather zone to offset random mud in summer of 41. It's always happened to me in my past games but it seems they turned this feature off as the new rules seem to point out.

(in reply to Pelton)

Post #: 2

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/9/2012 3:27:55 AM

AFV

Posts: 372
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

Weather in WITE is so ultra-simplistic. It is really lacking. And yes, I know to fix it would take some effort and therefore it will not happen, which is too bad.
1) Random weather should be based on historical weather per year (so 41-42 will (generally) be more severe than 44-45 (agree with Pelton)
2) There should be many more zones- wtf where can you have mud for 1000 miles in any direction???
3) There should be a "light mud" weather effect

My impression of the current weather is that it was done way early in the games development- just something quick and dirty so the game could be tested- and as other parts came into place and were worked on, they just kinda forgot about the weather and left it as it was.

(in reply to Schmart)

Post #: 3

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/9/2012 4:02:23 AM

hfarrish

Posts: 768
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

Weather in WITE is so ultra-simplistic. It is really lacking. And yes, I know to fix it would take some effort and therefore it will not happen, which is too bad.
1) Random weather should be based on historical weather per year (so 41-42 will (generally) be more severe than 44-45 (agree with Pelton)
2) There should be many more zones- wtf where can you have mud for 1000 miles in any direction???
3) There should be a "light mud" weather effect

My impression of the current weather is that it was done way early in the games development- just something quick and dirty so the game could be tested- and as other parts came into place and were worked on, they just kinda forgot about the weather and left it as it was.

I don't disagree with any of this...but I still think the absurdity of WITE random weather does not outweigh the absurdity of knowing with certainty for four years what the weather will be every week...but totally see how others would disagree. It's a difficult point in the game.

(in reply to AFV)

Post #: 4

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/9/2012 8:05:27 AM

LiquidSky

Posts: 965
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

Weather in WITE is so ultra-simplistic. It is really lacking. And yes, I know to fix it would take some effort and therefore it will not happen, which is too bad.
1) Random weather should be based on historical weather per year (so 41-42 will (generally) be more severe than 44-45 (agree with Pelton)
2) There should be many more zones- wtf where can you have mud for 1000 miles in any direction???
3) There should be a "light mud" weather effect

My impression of the current weather is that it was done way early in the games development- just something quick and dirty so the game could be tested- and as other parts came into place and were worked on, they just kinda forgot about the weather and left it as it was.

The answer to 2 is, of course, Russia...where the accumulated moisture of 5 months of snow melts, causing fields to be flooded, and the land to be a sticky goo. But then anybody who read anything about Russia would know this.

As for light mud, well...what exactly is 'light mud'? If it rains, and wheeled traffic cannot move including artillery pieces, supply wagons, (either horse drawn or truck), officers for meetings with higher commands...and the afv's that would normally be on the front fighting have to be called back to help pull said vehicles out of the mud..does it matter if it only lasted a few days? If the luftwaffe has to airdrop chains to stranded vehicles so they can be used to pull them out of the mud, does it matter that they came from airfields that were sunny? They arent bombing Russians.

If the rain stops your supplies/fuel from reaching you at the front, where the weather is sunny.....should that be a different zone (implying that it is 'unaffected' by weather?) That is why a hex base system would be absolutely silly...and smaller granularity approaching sillyness.

Basically, if your supply line is hit anywhere by bad weather, that will bottleneck and slow down the supply reaching your troops, which will stop them from being an effective fighting force.

_____________________________

What's the sense of sending $2 million missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?

� President George W. Bush, Oval Office meeting, 13 September 2001.

(in reply to AFV)

Post #: 5

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/9/2012 8:29:24 AM

Michael T

Posts: 2460
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

All contemporary board wargames on a similar scale to WITE do a much better job simulating the weather. I agree with Pelton here. The devs kind of dropped the ball. It is curious as he says, they go to tremendous detail and complexity on many levels, some are rather meaningless in game terms. Yet in something as important as the weather its way too simple and gets about a 1 out of 10.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 6

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/9/2012 8:59:01 AM

AFV

Posts: 372
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

LiquidSky:
Light mud would be when it rains, but the mud does not impede traffic as much as heavy mud.
I don't really disagree with anything in your monologue, which was mostly factual but not that pertinent.
Some people might be thrilled at how WITE handles weather- maybe you are one of those. Michael T and Pelton are not, and I happen to agree with them.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 7

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/9/2012 1:47:36 PM

Pelton

Posts: 6702
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

Weather in WITE is so ultra-simplistic. It is really lacking. And yes, I know to fix it would take some effort and therefore it will not happen, which is too bad.
1) Random weather should be based on historical weather per year (so 41-42 will (generally) be more severe than 44-45 (agree with Pelton)
2) There should be many more zones- wtf where can you have mud for 1000 miles in any direction???
3) There should be a "light mud" weather effect

My impression of the current weather is that it was done way early in the games development- just something quick and dirty so the game could be tested- and as other parts came into place and were worked on, they just kinda forgot about the weather and left it as it was.

I don't disagree with any of this...but I still think the absurdity of WITE random weather does not outweigh the absurdity of knowing with certainty for four years what the weather will be every week...but totally see how others would disagree. It's a difficult point in the game.

I have no problem with random weather if it based on something.

Blizzard(not snow) in the northern zone starting Novomber and ending in April is just a plain joke and based on The Lord of The Rings and not historical records.

Again the 41/42 winter was the worst on record, that should be the worst possible weather not the best possible.

If the weather is based on historical records I have no issues with it, because there would be less Blizzard turns and more clear and snow.

If it was based on historical records SHC players would not be playing random weather games.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 9/9/2012 1:48:40 PM >

_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 5 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFM9MmD_Mk&list=RDBTukSakeqr4&index=2

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 8

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/10/2012 11:45:16 AM

rrbill

Posts: 720
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: online

But isn't "Lord of the Rings" history?

Agree that historical weather could be a play option and I'd expect some randomness to modify the schedule. Never tried fixed weather AI game, but maybe a few tries once in a while wouldn't hurt. Does the fixed schedule match history?

Seems that there needs to be some variability in "Mud" effects as the fall wet season is nothing like Spring Rasputitsa and some seasons blizzards didn't live up to '41/'42.

But the worst weather issue is the geographic pattern. Can anyone offer evidence/opinion that the patterns used have an historical basis?

(in reply to Pelton)

Post #: 9

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/16/2012 3:55:38 AM

AFV

Posts: 372
Joined: 12/24/2011
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

But isn't "Lord of the Rings" history?

Agree that historical weather could be a play option and I'd expect some randomness to modify the schedule. Never tried fixed weather AI game, but maybe a few tries once in a while wouldn't hurt. Does the fixed schedule match history?

Seems that there needs to be some variability in "Mud" effects as the fall wet season is nothing like Spring Rasputitsa and some seasons blizzards didn't live up to '41/'42.

But the worst weather issue is the geographic pattern. Can anyone offer evidence/opinion that the patterns used have an historical basis?

Agreed with both these points (well, not sure about the Lord of the Rings being history :)
According to Liquid Sky, if you have "read anything about Russia", you would know that all of Russia is one weather zone. And also, there is only one kind of mud. whether it is spring or fall.

(in reply to rrbill)

Post #: 10

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/16/2012 7:53:42 AM

DivePac88

Posts: 3123
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

Agreed with both these points (well, not sure about the Lord of the Rings being history :)
According to Liquid Sky, if you have "read anything about Russia", you would know that all of Russia is one weather zone. And also, there is only one kind of mud. whether it is spring or fall.

I have to agree with you Guys here to... as even now-a-days any moderate rain in European Russia can cause big transportation problems. But having agreed that the weather model is too simplistic in WitE, it is all we have at present.

But I think that Pelton is correct in his assumption, that having the 1941 winter as a baseline is the major problem with the modeling. That an average historical winter baseline, say taken over the last 100 years would be infinitely better.

_____________________________

When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to AFV)

Post #: 11

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/16/2012 11:16:07 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

The German logistical breakdown of 41-2 is baked into the weather. This would have been a serious problem even in the event of a "normal" Russian winter. That's what Pelton is missing here. Since the game's logistical system itself will not produce the result (indeed it is laughably generous) the weather is doing double duty here.

That logistical breakdown was virtually unavoidable. The Germans simply made no allowance whatsoever for an extended campaign in the Soviet Union. It was all supposed to be over in a few months, and when it wasn't, they effectively were strategically bankrupt.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to DivePac88)

Post #: 12

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/16/2012 12:43:13 PM

jaw

Posts: 978
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

Random weather is a game feature in there to mix things up a bit; it has almost nothing to do with actual weather variability. If you play this game primarily for competitive reasons then use random weather to keep players on their toes; if your interest is in seeing how well the game simulates history then use non-random weather. It's as simple as that.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 13

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/16/2012 1:26:46 PM

rrbill

Posts: 720
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: online

Enjoy the game as it is, but always can talk "adjustments." Sympathy for the game developers as what's to be done to make a good, playable game and still create something "real" enough to attract players of a certain kind (a marketing decision and cost issue.)

Theres's a lot of great stuff in this game, like the map, the weaponry details, unit identifications & structures, leaders, ..., but then all that detail bumps up against simple weather modelling, the production, the logistics, and whatever else that must be employed to get the game made. Hard to find the balance of simple vs detailed, but always room for discussion.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 14

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/26/2012 5:46:55 PM

bednarre

Posts: 128
Joined: 2/23/2011
Status: offline

Why not have a random number determine the reduction in MP and CV for each hex. This of course would be based on the weather condition for that zone. This would provide a limited attack capability during mud turns, and perhaps even in the blizzard period. It seems like there is an abrupt effect when weather changes (great to horrendous or vice-versa). Also, supply would be curtailed. The Russian winter of 1941 was not that bad statistically according to Russian weather reports from the period.
The record low was set in 1940!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow#Climate

(in reply to rrbill)

Post #: 15

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/27/2012 12:00:20 AM

Pelton

Posts: 6702
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The German logistical breakdown of 41-2 is baked into the weather. This would have been a serious problem even in the event of a "normal" Russian winter. That's what Pelton is missing here. Since the game's logistical system itself will not produce the result (indeed it is laughably generous) the weather is doing double duty here.

That logistical breakdown was virtually unavoidable. The Germans simply made no allowance whatsoever for an extended campaign in the Soviet Union. It was all supposed to be over in a few months, and when it wasn't, they effectively were strategically bankrupt.

The last few patches have really made the logistics system much more "normal". How far did the GHC go in how short of a time after Keiv fell?

A very simple fix to the blizzard is nerf the ZOC bonus for SHC units. There should be no way 10+ german units can easly get pocketed( if SHC knows how to exploit current rule set) during blizzard. Thats just not even semi historical(more LotR's stuff). Lol if they really know how to exploit the current rules set and GHC player wants to be historical and hold the libe then SHC player will pocket 30+ german divisions.

Come on does anyone beleive that Ring Wrath BS?

On no one does unless they are smoking some of that good Hobbit stuff

The artition rate on GHC units might have to be increased a little to make running as GHC not worth it and holding the line worht it.

The logistics model at this pt is really not bad at all. There is a real chain and its can't be broken unless MT or someone esle knows some wierd exploit.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 9/27/2012 12:03:30 AM >

_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 5 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFM9MmD_Mk&list=RDBTukSakeqr4&index=2

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 16

RE: Random Weather and new people. - 9/27/2012 10:21:14 AM

janh

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The last few patches have really made the logistics system much more "normal". How far did the GHC go in how short of a time after Keiv fell?

Yes, though I still fell it is rather benefiting an advancing Army, i.e. both sides. Seems logistics ought to be a tid bit more strained to recreate troubles like the halt at Pskov or the Landbridge. Either that, or make units in pockets survive longer so infantry doesn't close up so fast -- that could be another explanation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
A very simple fix to the blizzard is nerf the ZOC bonus for SHC units.

The artition rate on GHC units might have to be increased a little to make running as GHC not worth it and holding the line worht it.

Yes, the sneaking thru German lines should not lead to such consequences. Maybe a greater supply malus if a unit squeezes thru a gap, even if only 1 hex and still in full contact with the MBTL?

However, I wouldn't temper with the attrition rate at this point. It appears to lead to reasonable numbers, and twisting that could twist reality. You wouldn't want totally unrealistic attrition rates, if the true reason for the holding orders was as much political/Hitler as it was militarily implicated (argument of loosing heavy equipment, wounded etc. on a hasty retreat).
If twisted, it might lead to totally unrealistic game tactics. Some reason must be given like VP, which is an arbitrary property at large anyway. Same as for the Soviet 41 withdrawal, you can't make industry evac unrealistically and artificially slow.

Same as with the Soviets, maybe simply reducing the blizzard penalties somewhat would do to give the Germans better chances and sense to fight forward. Seems in the forthcoming patch/addon these special rules will be opened to modding. That should be most interesting and will allow us to "fine tune" things to personal liking, or whatever criterium you wish.

(in reply to Pelton)

Post #: 17