What's next generation SC-WAW? Time to double size map & # turns?

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

SC-WAW is lifetime keeper. What happens next? Was thinking, double the size of the map, and double the # of turns. And change nothing else. That legit for a start?

1) Double Map size
2) Double turns
3) All kinds of new terrain (bridges, more types of roads, elevation, better trains, small rivers, name it.)
4) All kinds of new units (tactical level, more types of Tanks, Infantry, name it)
5) New lower level leaders/special units (Doolitter, Audie Murphy, Big Red One, Commandos, SS, Gurkas, Frogman)
6) Better partisans (redo this piece)
7) POW (prisoners of war, camps, work camps)
8) Improved Island fighting, Caves
9) Sieges (such as real Battle on Manila)
10) More kinds of factories, installations, forts, flooding hexes
11) Allow defender(s) different types of defense: Skirmish, Normal, To the Death
12) Redo Kamikazes (These dudes should be able to intercept)
13) New port facilities, supply depots
14) Better Jungle fights for smaller units, which need less supply
15) Not allow old units to be upgraded as easy as newly built
16) New point system scoring.
17) Rockets modified
18) <fill-in-the-blank> since game could add tactical stuff with bigger map

[Elessar2]

Yea on #1.
Nay on #2, if this means that side with the initiative will know what their opponents' weather will be, but not the 2nd player...
#3, more types of ports, port size can affect how much supply they generate (for both land and sea) as well as how much damaged ships can be repaired to
If no-stacking remains, breaking down/consolidating units HAS to become an option.

[Marcinos1985]

Revamped weather system [:)]

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Yes adding

1) Weather
2) Decoy units! Patton's Ghost Army for fake landing to trick Gerry.
3) Beach hexes. There should be "best" landing spots
4) More modified elevation: Hills & Mountains
5) Modify FOW (Fog Of War). Jungle dudes get to hide their number. Panzers can hide in the Ardennes.
6) Human body counts. Population of potential soldiers + civilians. As a country is getting waxed, replacements are weaker. Bombings waxing civilians could come into play.

Yipie I oh, yipie I ay,
Ghost riders in the sky

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

6) Better partisans (redo this piece)
17) Rockets modified

Can you elaborate on these two?

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Revamped weather system [:)]

Can you expand on this too?

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Currently, the game is very good. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be playing for the last 18-months. Game play is good, meaning, I like playing either side. There's an editor, so players can do as they wish. Going forward, is there a going forward? Meaning, is this the end for SC franchise? I played the original SC, SC-Pacific, SC-2, SC3-World with the squares, and now SC-WAW. I didn't play the SC-Europe, maybe why I lose to the top players. The evolution is much, much better. Obviously, the makers (Hubert & Company has to pay their bills, unless they are independently loaded already).

If there is going to be another SC, if I was fathom the guess, it would increase everything in size. Map, Turns, and add more Tactical feel. Thing is, to player's want that? Would is sell? Make the next flavor with more detail, units, everything. If so, then all kinds of new design would be needed. That's where my list, came in.

Now, specific to your question: Partisans

Partisans: They are too predictable, press the key 'p', you know where to block them. Currently, from all my games, the Partisans never appear, because players block them. They have to block them, else it REALLY screws them over. If they don't block them, it's because they forgot. Any entire Russia sector is then hosed, or a port in France/Paris is captured. Been there, done that on both sides. So is this really a strategy or just maintenance. Late in the game the partisans become a real factor, when the race is on for the Allies attempting to win the game.

1) Make random more locations
2) Don't make them as powerful in a strategic game.
3) Allow Allies to invest in specific areas for partisans, at a cost.
4) Give partisans the ability to "run away", kind of like submarines if in their native Woods, Jungle, or Big City
5) Allow the partisans to actually to 1-damage.
6) Let the partisans move with stealth, not capturing land/city/rail. Invisible mode so to speak.

Now, to Rockets:

Everytime I read about WW-2, watch YouTube, I hear about the Rocket bombings of London, the terror & death. The story of how Patton was not given gasoline, because Monty needed it to find V2 launching locations. The people of London were completely freaked out, and rightly so.

a) Give the Germans a rocket unit as a reinforcement, when ever historical they started, obviously after Fall of France, right?
b) The Rockets launched on London, need to do something for morale in current model. Just popping a little supply, not significant.
c) Give the Rockets, FOW protection. Or maybe the ability to "retreat" when attacked. The scientists pack up and go.
d) Maybe a better idea, make the Rockets shoot together all differently. It's not a "shot per turn", but a huge volley, that packs a big punch, but take longer to reload so to speak.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

French Partisans: Yet another case study. In WW2, those French dudes were gathering information, spying, mixed in the populace. Like VC-Charlies. Victor Charlie the French flavor. Currently, they have no impact SC-WAW. The Germans are gonna garrison Brest & Bordeaux. The mine area, may or may not be garrisoned all the time, that's decent. So how to make the French partisans be part of a Strategic game?

1) Could have shadow pieces of the Allies, representing "spotters", aka spies to give location of Gerry. Partisans report that "5th Army is in Paris with strength-7, morale 97%". Partisans report Tactical Bomber group has moved.
2) Could have small pops on pieces in Paris. Damage in Morale or Strength.
3) German units in Warsaw should be getting popped.

Anyone have ideas?

[firsteds]

1) Double Map size

11) Allow defender(s) different types of defense: Skirmish, Normal, To the Death

14) Better Jungle fights for smaller units, which need less supply

Re 1 - a tick from me but I expect this is many years away, love the current game

Re 11 - this is a great idea. If a unit is in a city we could have a 'siege mode' that you can manually set. For example a 'no retreat' option. This is better than turning off No Retreats in the initial settings, because it applies to all units, even in the open. Useful for Naning, Rostov etc.

Re 14 - in a jungle the game should allow for supply by air drop for a couple of turns. Reflects history in Burma. But this looks technically difficult so probably not a realistic request.

My own wish list:

18. Add a Doolitlle raid straight after Pearl. Similar to the Dakar Raid. Totally optional. High risk (cost) but high reward (NM boost).
19. Spawn a Polish Airborne unit in the UK in 1943 or early 1944. It's good to remember the Poles in WW2.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

ORIGINAL: firsteds

My own wish list:

18. Add a Doolitlle raid straight after Pearl. Similar to the Dakar Raid. Totally optional. High risk (cost) but high reward (NM boost).
19. Spawn a Polish Airborne unit in the UK in 1943 or early 1944. It's good to remember the Poles in WW2.

Yeah, bro, Doolittle for sure, but NO Alec Baldwin on the flight deck. Gene Hackman, as Maj. Gen. Sosabowski Polish Paratroops is a must!

Maj. General Stanislaw Sosabowski:

"Doesn't matter what it was. When one man says to another, "I know what let's do today, let's play the war game."... everybody dies."
"God bless Field Marshal Montgomery."
"Weather. What of the Germans, General Browning. Don't you think that if we know Arnhem is so critical to their safety that they might know it too?"
"Faith? I will tell you how much faith I have. I am thinking of asking for a letter from you stating that I was ordered to go on this mission in case my men are massacred."
"No... In the case of massacre: what difference will it make?"

[wobbleguts]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

SC-WAW is lifetime keeper. What happens next? Was thinking, double the size of the map, and double the # of turns. And change nothing else. That legit for a start?

1) Double Map size
2) Double turns
3) All kinds of new terrain (bridges, more types of roads, elevation, better trains, small rivers, name it.)
4) All kinds of new units (tactical level, more types of Tanks, Infantry, name it)
5) New lower level leaders/special units (Doolitter, Audie Murphy, Big Red One, Commandos, SS, Gurkas, Frogman)
6) Better partisans (redo this piece)
7) POW (prisoners of war, camps, work camps)
8) Improved Island fighting, Caves
9) Sieges (such as real Battle on Manila)
10) More kinds of factories, installations, forts, flooding hexes
11) Allow defender(s) different types of defense: Skirmish, Normal, To the Death
12) Redo Kamikazes (These dudes should be able to intercept)
13) New port facilities, supply depots
14) Better Jungle fights for smaller units, which need less supply
15) Not allow old units to be upgraded as easy as newly built
16) New point system scoring.
17) Rockets modified
18) <fill-in-the-blank> since game could add tactical stuff with bigger map

A big list!

1) Would love a bigger map. Not sure if it is possible with present game.
3) This would only be able to be implemented if there was a bigger map.
4) I think the game has the unit mix about right. I wouldn't want to micromanage building mulberry harbours and flail tanks etc. So for thie point no.
5) Fine with that. Does it really affect the game?
7) Often thought about this as I have never played a war game where POWs were a factor. However, wouldn't this require even more micro-management and make the game less fun?
8) Caves? Are you serious? How did caves actually change the overall result of WW2? The Japs hid in them but did it change anything? If you want caves included it would require a bigger map. See 1 and 2.
13) Agreed. I would love to upgrade port facilities.
15) I don't see why this is a problem.
17) I think rockets are accurately portrayed. They did cause a lot of damage but the plucky Brits defeated them.

I would like to see a simple option to remove all build limits and another for expanded diplomacy options.

[Captjohn757]

Elvis, you appear to be calling for a serious overhaul of the game . . . some of your suggestions are well taken from this quarter (larger map, for example). Maybe in time. Meanwhile, what's the deal with redoing the kamikazes? These guys were on a one-way trip, loaded with explosives and/or 200lb. and 250lb. bombs. The idea would be to avoid enemy (allied) aircraft, not engage/intercept them. Even a Zero, with a couple of 200lb. bombs strapped to the airframe, would have snowball's chance in a dogfight.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

ORIGINAL: Captjohn757

Elvis, you appear to be calling for a serious overhaul of the game . . . some of your suggestions are well taken from this quarter (larger map, for example). Maybe in time. Meanwhile, what's the deal with redoing the kamikazes? These guys were on a one-way trip, loaded with explosives and/or 200lb. and 250lb. bombs. The idea would be to avoid enemy (allied) aircraft, not engage/intercept them. Even a Zero, with a couple of 200lb. bombs strapped to the airframe, would have snowball's chance in a dogfight.

Greetings Captain J ---

My comment about the map, would require a whole new game, new product, thus opens the flood gates for design. Double the Map, is a complete overhaul, meaning, the Next Generation of SC-WAW. Could call it SC-TotalWar. What is next in the Product line-up, only Hubert can steer that ship. I'm thinking a new beast, lots more detail, leaning to some more Tactical units. Would mean more "clicking" as a player, and go away from simplicity, maybe?

Kamikazes, in the current game, rarely used. Seriously, I've played so many games, my opponents have never even used on me, maybe once. No Jap(anese) players buy them.

1) Give the Jap(anese) some Kamikazes as stock units in their mix, in a trigger event. Kind of like the Hitler Nazi Youth and Old Men units that appear late in Europe side. Example script: If Yanks control blah-blah after 1944, flip the Jap(anese) some Suicide units, no charge.

2) Here's what is needed, and why nobody buys them. The Yanks just "hit & run" because MacArthur can spot their location. Just attack and move outta their range. Makes them virtually useless. ***SOLUTION*** allow the mode where Kamikazes can 'Intercept' a SHIP them comes into their range.

Thoughts?

-EJR

[Marcinos1985]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Revamped weather system [:)]

Can you expand on this too?

In my opinion, there are 2 problems with weather right now.

1. Rain/Snow shuts aircraft down for an entire turn.

Currently getting rain (or snow) on your turn means your planes will not fly. As aircraft is very powerful it is often detrimental for current situation. 2 most important examples are France'40 and South Russia'41. If Luftwaffe gets to fly in early winter, France will probably fall much earlier, like 2 turns, sometimes even 3 if really unlucky. In Russia it's the same - if LW flies in Oct/Nov/Dec, Germany progress will be much stronger. This skews games, sometimes pretty hard.

What is more, such a polarizing system may (often) lead to situations, where one side flies continuosly (bc (s)he rolled good weather) and other side, on the very next turn, is grounded. It's not outside of probability range to fly 3 times in a row, when opponent doesn't at all.

Solution - let planes fly regardless of weather, just (strongly) reduce effectiveness in a bad weather. It rarely rains/snows continously for a whole month, at least in Europe, so this could be justified.

1. Bad weather is not bad enough

With some notable exceptions, bad weather caused entire fronts to stale for months. Armies just sat in place, and if they did perform some actions, they often exhausted themselves quickly. You may argue that historically Soviets conducted offensives in Winter, but later on they took several months to refit.

In SC:WaW, bad weather penalties aren't that harsh really. In 1941, German troops have so superior readiness and morale, that they can get good odds even in frozen weather, so with halved efficiency. Mud is troublesome for movement, but if there is a direct frontline, Soviets will take a beating regardless. Frozen weather on other hand reduces effectiveness of combat, but at the same time allows full movement, so you may gain terrain quite easily. And this reduced effectiveness still allows Germany to take Low Countries in Winter no problem. Was it a feasible scenario IRL?

SC: WaW is quite a fast game comparing to reality, often 1942 is a decisive year, while IRL 1944 probably was a final nail for GER, even if war was decided earlier. Weather is one of the reasons, why game dust settles so fast - you just can push in such weather conditions, that in reality would spell doom for such an initiative. Personally, I would really enjoy longer and more even games, even if this means that some turns will be 'boring', bc bad weather would force both sides to wait.

Solution: Harsher penalties for bad weather - additional morale loss, less AP's, reduced effectiveness.

There are more minor things. I believe weather in France and eastern Europe is (too) good vs what happened IRL. Also weather transition can be quick sometimes, from frozen to clear in one turn, without a mud in between.

These are 2 cents [:)]

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Revamped weather system [:)]

Can you expand on this too?

In my opinion, there are 2 problems with weather right now.

1. Rain/Snow shuts aircraft down for an entire turn.

Currently getting rain (or snow) on your turn means your planes will not fly. As aircraft is very powerful it is often detrimental for current situation. 2 most important examples are France'40 and South Russia'41. If Luftwaffe gets to fly in early winter, France will probably fall much earlier, like 2 turns, sometimes even 3 if really unlucky. In Russia it's the same - if LW flies in Oct/Nov/Dec, Germany progress will be much stronger. This skews games, sometimes pretty hard.

What is more, such a polarizing system may (often) lead to situations, where one side flies continuosly (bc (s)he rolled good weather) and other side, on the very next turn, is grounded. It's not outside of probability range to fly 3 times in a row, when opponent doesn't at all.

Solution - let planes fly regardless of weather, just (strongly) reduce effectiveness in a bad weather. It rarely rains/snows continously for a whole month, at least in Europe, so this could be justified.

1. Bad weather is not bad enough

With some notable exceptions, bad weather caused entire fronts to stale for months. Armies just sat in place, and if they did perform some actions, they often exhausted themselves quickly. You may argue that historically Soviets conducted offensives in Winter, but later on they took several months to refit.

In SC:WaW, bad weather penalties aren't that harsh really. In 1941, German troops have so superior readiness and morale, that they can get good odds even in frozen weather, so with halved efficiency. Mud is troublesome for movement, but if there is a direct frontline, Soviets will take a beating regardless. Frozen weather on other hand reduces effectiveness of combat, but at the same time allows full movement, so you may gain terrain quite easily. And this reduced effectiveness still allows Germany to take Low Countries in Winter no problem. Was it a feasible scenario IRL?

SC: WaW is quite a fast game comparing to reality, often 1942 is a decisive year, while IRL 1944 probably was a final nail for GER, even if war was decided earlier. Weather is one of the reasons, why game dust settles so fast - you just can push in such weather conditions, that in reality would spell doom for such an initiative. Personally, I would really enjoy longer and more even games, even if this means that some turns will be 'boring', bc bad weather would force both sides to wait.

Solution: Harsher penalties for bad weather - additional morale loss, less AP's, reduced effectiveness.

There are more minor things. I believe weather in France and eastern Europe is (too) good vs what happened IRL. Also weather transition can be quick sometimes, from frozen to clear in one turn, without a mud in between.

These are 2 cents [:)]

All of this...especially this: Solution: "Harsher penalties for bad weather - additional morale loss, less AP's, reduced effectiveness." This would possibly help the USSR, which even is played properly, doesn't really benefit from the Axis powers [historical] lack of winter preparedness during the first winter of Barbarossa. (imho).

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

SC-WAW is lifetime keeper. What happens next? Was thinking, double the size of the map, and double the # of turns. And change nothing else. That legit for a start?

1) Double Map size
2) Double turns
3) All kinds of new terrain (bridges, more types of roads, elevation, better trains, small rivers, name it.)
4) All kinds of new units (tactical level, more types of Tanks, Infantry, name it)
5) New lower level leaders/special units (Doolitter, Audie Murphy, Big Red One, Commandos, SS, Gurkas, Frogman)
6) Better partisans (redo this piece)
7) POW (prisoners of war, camps, work camps)
8) Improved Island fighting, Caves
9) Sieges (such as real Battle on Manila)
10) More kinds of factories, installations, forts, flooding hexes
11) Allow defender(s) different types of defense: Skirmish, Normal, To the Death
12) Redo Kamikazes (These dudes should be able to intercept)
13) New port facilities, supply depots
14) Better Jungle fights for smaller units, which need less supply
15) Not allow old units to be upgraded as easy as newly built
16) New point system scoring.
17) Rockets modified
18) <fill-in-the-blank> since game could add tactical stuff with bigger map

All my opinion of course [:)]

#1 Yes
#2 Yes if NOT simultaneous
#3 maybe..be more specific
#4 this is a grand strategic level game..so no.
#5 no..Audie Murphy..are you joking? [this is a grand strategic level game..so no]
#6 How so ? Give ideas.
#7 No...this is a grand strategic level game..so no.
#8 Maybe..perhaps Japanese have fortifications already on Iwo Jima....etc.
#9 Already can do with current game mechanics
#10 elaborate more..maybe.
#11 Good idea..but can current engine do this? Kind of reminds me of old school grand strategy board games where when in a battle each opponent throws a tactical card or chit.
#12 intercept..what? They throwing down on a carrier...there's no interceptions..unless you mean an extra activation phase trigger by your opponents move..then..Yes.
#13 BIG YES...Kodiak Island...CC for all the North Pacific. All of it! Big missing here.
#14 this is a grand strategic level game..so no.
#15 already worked in...what ever remaining old veterans in a depleted unit should pass on their knowledge better than a fresh green unit...so No.
#16 For MP's YES....but how?
#17 Yes
#18 Bigger Map.

All my opinion also.

In response to ElvisJJonesRambo:
With all respect and humility to your opinion of course.....Patton is an over-rated nink-a-poop!
With that..well...I leave and await a colorful exchange. Life is short [:D]

[Illiniwek80]

I would be happy with a smarter AI; I really don't care for playing human opponnents. I've had big problems with its management of HQs (it tends to clump them all together near the front. My last game, all German HQs were kept within 4 hexes of Warsaw in 1943. You move them out, it moves them back). As far as a different scale goes, I'd be content with a zoomed-in Egypt battlefield that you can transit units.

Regarding weather, I turn it off because the effects on airpower are too drastic. I've had my entire airforce grounded for almost entirely 6 months at a time. Too much. I'd say rainy weather should just decrease its effectiveness, since turns are such long time periods. Also, someone did an analysis awhile back (which, anecedotally, I believe to be correct) that weather plays against the human player 70% of the time.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: ElvisJJonesRambo

Currently, the game is very good. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be playing for the last 18-months. Game play is good, meaning, I like playing either side. There's an editor, so players can do as they wish. Going forward, is there a going forward? Meaning, is this the end for SC franchise? I played the original SC, SC-Pacific, SC-2, SC3-World with the squares, and now SC-WAW. I didn't play the SC-Europe, maybe why I lose to the top players. The evolution is much, much better. Obviously, the makers (Hubert & Company has to pay their bills, unless they are independently loaded already).

If there is going to be another SC, if I was fathom the guess, it would increase everything in size. Map, Turns, and add more Tactical feel. Thing is, to player's want that? Would is sell? Make the next flavor with more detail, units, everything. If so, then all kinds of new design would be needed. That's where my list, came in.

Now, specific to your question: Partisans

Partisans: They are too predictable, press the key 'p', you know where to block them. Currently, from all my games, the Partisans never appear, because players block them. They have to block them, else it REALLY screws them over. If they don't block them, it's because they forgot. Any entire Russia sector is then hosed, or a port in France/Paris is captured. Been there, done that on both sides. So is this really a strategy or just maintenance. Late in the game the partisans become a real factor, when the race is on for the Allies attempting to win the game.

1) Make random more locations
2) Don't make them as powerful in a strategic game.
3) Allow Allies to invest in specific areas for partisans, at a cost.
4) Give partisans the ability to "run away", kind of like submarines if in their native Woods, Jungle, or Big City
5) Allow the partisans to actually to 1-damage.
6) Let the partisans move with stealth, not capturing land/city/rail. Invisible mode so to speak.

Now, to Rockets:

Everytime I read about WW-2, watch YouTube, I hear about the Rocket bombings of London, the terror & death. The story of how Patton was not given gasoline, because Monty needed it to find V2 launching locations. The people of London were completely freaked out, and rightly so.

a) Give the Germans a rocket unit as a reinforcement, when ever historical they started, obviously after Fall of France, right?
b) The Rockets launched on London, need to do something for morale in current model. Just popping a little supply, not significant.
c) Give the Rockets, FOW protection. Or maybe the ability to "retreat" when attacked. The scientists pack up and go.
d) Maybe a better idea, make the Rockets shoot together all differently. It's not a "shot per turn", but a huge volley, that packs a big punch, but take longer to reload so to speak.

Thanks for explaining that. [:)]

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Marcinos1985

Revamped weather system [:)]

Can you expand on this too?

In my opinion, there are 2 problems with weather right now.

1. Rain/Snow shuts aircraft down for an entire turn.

Currently getting rain (or snow) on your turn means your planes will not fly. As aircraft is very powerful it is often detrimental for current situation. 2 most important examples are France'40 and South Russia'41. If Luftwaffe gets to fly in early winter, France will probably fall much earlier, like 2 turns, sometimes even 3 if really unlucky. In Russia it's the same - if LW flies in Oct/Nov/Dec, Germany progress will be much stronger. This skews games, sometimes pretty hard.

What is more, such a polarizing system may (often) lead to situations, where one side flies continuosly (bc (s)he rolled good weather) and other side, on the very next turn, is grounded. It's not outside of probability range to fly 3 times in a row, when opponent doesn't at all.

Solution - let planes fly regardless of weather, just (strongly) reduce effectiveness in a bad weather. It rarely rains/snows continously for a whole month, at least in Europe, so this could be justified.

1. Bad weather is not bad enough

With some notable exceptions, bad weather caused entire fronts to stale for months. Armies just sat in place, and if they did perform some actions, they often exhausted themselves quickly. You may argue that historically Soviets conducted offensives in Winter, but later on they took several months to refit.

In SC:WaW, bad weather penalties aren't that harsh really. In 1941, German troops have so superior readiness and morale, that they can get good odds even in frozen weather, so with halved efficiency. Mud is troublesome for movement, but if there is a direct frontline, Soviets will take a beating regardless. Frozen weather on other hand reduces effectiveness of combat, but at the same time allows full movement, so you may gain terrain quite easily. And this reduced effectiveness still allows Germany to take Low Countries in Winter no problem. Was it a feasible scenario IRL?

SC: WaW is quite a fast game comparing to reality, often 1942 is a decisive year, while IRL 1944 probably was a final nail for GER, even if war was decided earlier. Weather is one of the reasons, why game dust settles so fast - you just can push in such weather conditions, that in reality would spell doom for such an initiative. Personally, I would really enjoy longer and more even games, even if this means that some turns will be 'boring', bc bad weather would force both sides to wait.

Solution: Harsher penalties for bad weather - additional morale loss, less AP's, reduced effectiveness.

There are more minor things. I believe weather in France and eastern Europe is (too) good vs what happened IRL. Also weather transition can be quick sometimes, from frozen to clear in one turn, without a mud in between.

These are 2 cents [:)]

Thanks Marcinos1985 [:)]

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Illiniwek80

Also, someone did an analysis awhile back (which, anecedotally, I believe to be correct) that weather plays against the human player 70% of the time.

That may be perception as we do tend to note when things are against us, or the varied effects of randomness, as there is nothing built into the game for it to favour one side over the other, Axis or Allied, human or AI.