Hearts of Iron IV - 28th Development Diary - Weather & Terrain

[Midden]

That's a good explanation. The reduced movement speed itself seems to be the main cause of the attrition, not just by being in one place in the mud. Does this mean that conditions improve if the troops, heh, dig in? Does trenches even work in the rasputitsa? If not, defense would have a penalty but at least have more food and medicine available.

The mud also effects stationary troops on a front. Logistics is a constant flow, (as an analogy is say an artery that is clogged, preventing an adequate flow of blood), this has dire consequences on a person as not enough oxygen gets to the brain.

Imagine a resupply (food ammunition letters etc) trip that now takes 10 hours to cover the same distance that could have been traveled in an hour in normal conditions, (this is what mud does to transport). What tends to happen is the troops at the furthest part of the line from the road get no supply.

Guy Sagers book Forgotten Soldier has some great descriptions of resupply / new recruits traveling along the mud to the front, quite a saga, and the guys at the end of the line that see no food guess what they do?

 

[mursolini]

That's a good explanation. The reduced movement speed itself seems to be the main cause of the attrition, not just by being in one place in the mud. Does this mean that conditions improve if the troops, heh, dig in? Does trenches even work in the rasputitsa? If not, defense would have a penalty but at least have more food and medicine available.

I think you'll find that your trenches fill-up with muddy water pretty quickly.
So... unless you are, actually an African pig or an elephant, not as much fun as it might sound.

What happens to troops very much depends on where they are, and what do they have around. If roads are actually properly made, mud affects nothing, because roads don`t turn into mud. Today, for example, mud has very little effect in Russia and Ukraine, because most roads that meter were actually made properly after war.

If troops are in area of hills or some forest / trees planted for agricultural land defense from wind, there is little mud there as well. Mud really is a feature of places that have plants that die off in autumn and dirt roads.

Also, if you dig trenches properly, with drainage and wooden support, they will not get affected much, but it is much harder job, takes much more time.

 

[alanschu]

+100% attrition from mud. Wow, that's harsh . Probably entirely realistic, though.

It has certainly muddied up the waters on some of my suspected strategies for Barbarossa! ^_^

 

[Telenil]

Next week, we’ll look at factions, and wargoals!

HYPE!
Good journal, thanks.

 

[safe-keeper]

It has certainly muddied up the waters on some of my suspected strategies for Barbarossa! ^_^

It does help balance things. You may now be forced to invade during late spring or summer, because fall and spring are too muddy and winter is too blizzard-y.

Pity about the HOI3 weather, though. I didn't know it was that realistic or that so much effort was put into it. Kinda feel bad for the PDX team now, and/or guilty for having had such bad feelings about the weather system .

 

[misterbean]

I know what you mean. They made it a "real" weather engine, and I can't remember the last time I checked the weather before starting a major operation.

 

[Stenner]

In a sense it makes sense. But I can see a problem where all soviet or scandinavian generals would/could have the winter specialist trait, all African or South American generals would have the jungle rat trait, all Swiss generals mountaineer trait, etc...Yes, some countries should/could be more likely to have (at game start) or produce some climate related traits, but exploits should be avoided.

I kinda like that though, in the sense of simulation shouldn't it be harder to attack those areas in their "native" weather environments. Exploiting is DEFINATELY something I would try to do (because I like to game the system) if I were Russia - any bonus I can get.

 

[nhb1986]

Why is it that Urban Terrain gives a negative modifier to move through?

I mean those are the most developed infrastructure regions of countries. Streets, Highways and Railways everywhere.

Plains still have ditches, small streams or lakes without bridges, bush/tree rows, fences, plowed or full grown fields, narrow roads - probably not in best condition.
How is it that Plains should be the fastest standard terrain?

I mean correct me If I am wrong, but I feel Urban should get a 50% bonus instead (unless newly occupied)

 

[Axe99]

Pity about the HOI3 weather, though. I didn't know it was that realistic or that so much effort was put into it. Kinda feel bad for the PDX team now, and/or guilty for having had such bad feelings about the weather system .

I checked it regularly (it was a bit fiddly, but it felt odd not thinking about the weather in terms of WW2 strategy, and it still had an impact, even if not as much as it could) and it was very impressive - if you left the weather map on for a few days, you saw some impressive weather patterns develop, and I can't recall seeing anything that didn't feel appropriate or realistic. I agree that I feel a bit bad for the team - you've got to credit their attention to detail and hard work, even if it didn't end up being as important in the end.

 

[Liquid Sky]

Why is it that Urban Terrain gives a negative modifier to move through?

I mean those are the most developed infrastructure regions of countries. Streets, Highways and Railways everywhere.

Plains still have ditches, small streams or lakes without bridges, bush/tree rows, fences, plowed or full grown fields, narrow roads - probably not in best condition.
How is it that Plains should be the fastest standard terrain?

I mean correct me If I am wrong, but I feel Urban should get a 50% bonus instead (unless newly occupied)

I guess you have never tried to get to work in the morning in Urban Terrain.

 

[nhb1986]

I guess you have never tried to get to work in the morning in Urban Terrain.

oh but I have

I live in Hamburg where it is not THAT bad luckily - still I do take the Subway instead of the car. However I do think in a military situation Main Highways would be closed for certain times for priority military movements.

Maybe you can go via the Plains to work instead? should be quicker lol

 

[ringhloth]

Why is it that Urban Terrain gives a negative modifier to move through?

I mean those are the most developed infrastructure regions of countries. Streets, Highways and Railways everywhere.

Plains still have ditches, small streams or lakes without bridges, bush/tree rows, fences, plowed or full grown fields, narrow roads - probably not in best condition.
How is it that Plains should be the fastest standard terrain?

I mean correct me If I am wrong, but I feel Urban should get a 50% bonus instead (unless newly occupied)

It's not just one person trying to get through the city. It's tens of thousands of troops, all trying to get through the city, in an orderly and singular fashion. When you have plenty of buildings and obstacles, like there are in cities, no matter how well made the roads are, it's more difficult than it would be to move across flat plains, even with ditches and the occasional obstacle.

 

[nhb1986]

It's not just one person trying to get through the city. It's tens of thousands of troops, all trying to get through the city, in an orderly and singular fashion. When you have plenty of buildings and obstacles, like there are in cities, no matter how well made the roads are, it's more difficult than it would be to move across flat plains, even with ditches and the occasional obstacle.

Sorry, I really don't buy it.

I understand that it is a lot of boots to transfer, but the cities are used to transport thousands and hundreds of thousands of people per day. I don't think for a second that in case of war infantry would walk down Broadway or any distance in any major city - they would take specifically designated subways and trains. Military vehicles would be given priority lanes, or whole highways would be closed just for them. Extra trains and subways would be running, civil airport schedules would be adapted as seen fit, etc.

Take Munich as an example - during the last months tens of thousand of refugees have arrived there, to be distributed to camps and other states in Germany, in addition Millions have come in the last few weeks for the yearly "Oktoberfest" (in September lol ) - Still it worked.

Imagine a country in war. Priority in everything is given for the military. So yeah, I think infantry on plains should be on "normal speed" as in walking speed on a narrow road behind tanks or similar. But in Urban environments speed should be much increased for all unit types -> Vehicles and equipment on trains, infantry on subways/trains or at least buses.

Edit: with negative modifiers for newly conquered cities of course - depending on how long the siege took.

 

[Ksyr]

I recommend the book "Panzer Operations. The eastern front memoirs of General Raus, 1941-1945." It is relevant for several of the DDs and following discussions we have had on this forum lately. Weather, terrain and attrition affected many of his decisions. Having read that book I have no problem with mud doubling attrition. I'm not going to go into detail here, but I hope some, or all, of my fellow armchair generals read this book.

Edit: He also have some things to say about moving troops through a city and I have no problem with it having a penalty to speed.

 

[Kikaider]

Sorry, I really don't buy it.

I understand that it is a lot of boots to transfer, but the cities are used to transport thousands and hundreds of thousands of people per day. I don't think for a second that in case of war infantry would walk down Broadway or any distance in any major city - they would take specifically designated subways and trains. Military vehicles would be given priority lanes, or whole highways would be closed just for them. Extra trains and subways would be running, civil airport schedules would be adapted as seen fit, etc.

Take Munich as an example - during the last months tens of thousand of refugees have arrived there, to be distributed to camps and other states in Germany, in addition Millions have come in the last few weeks for the yearly "Oktoberfest" (in September lol ) - Still it worked.

Imagine a country in war. Priority in everything is given for the military. So yeah, I think infantry on plains should be on "normal speed" as in walking speed on a narrow road behind tanks or similar. But in Urban environments speed should be much increased for all unit types -> Vehicles and equipment on trains, infantry on subways/trains or at least buses.

Edit: with negative modifiers for newly conquered cities of course - depending on how long the siege took.

I think the issue here is your thinking of modern infrastructure and thinking it was the same 70-80 years ago (otherwise your examples wouldn't be modern, ocktoberfest in the 1930s only brought about 20-30k people in IIRC, maybe a bit more, but definitely not todays millions). TBH, I would say infantry shouldn't really be slowed if the city isn't contested (so urban movement malus + inf urban move bonus with a city being at 80-100% infra = about a 0% or just a small move malus) since the streets and bridges were originally designed for pedestrian and light motor traffic (e.g., towed arty, trucks, even apcs). However, because of the need to avoid resistance fighters/rubble/destroyed paths in occupied territory or heavily inconveniencing your own populations in your urban areas, there wouldn't be bonuses either.

However, few bridges could support whole platoons of 25t-50t+ tanks on it at one time, roads and bridges could be too narrow to allow tanks through at all, heavy tanks (e.g., Tigers and IS series) tear up roads as they move slowing everyone else down etc. All this would slow movement of heavier troops down (you mention trains, but light rail isn't often up to the task of moving tanks + given the time to board and load the trains could be more than offset by the limited distance traveled).

 

[nhb1986]

I recommend the book "Panzer Operations. The eastern front memoirs of General Raus, 1941-1945." It is relevant for several of the DDs and following discussions we have had on this forum lately. Weather, terrain and attrition affected many of his decisions. Having read that book I have problem with mud doubling attrition. I'm not going to go into detail here, but I hope some, or all, of my fellow armchair generals read this book.

Edit: He also have some things to say about moving troops through a city and I have no problem with it having a penalty to speed.

Yes, sorry I am not a WWII veteran (thankfully)

Still, I find it weird that armies move faster through "mild terrain" aka Plains than cities. Even if the cities 70 years ago were not transporting that many people.
Also if there were issues with bridges wouldn't the bridges in rural areas (aka Plains) be even worse?

I do have to say I am a bit of a noob in terms of WWII warfare, I just watched the odd Documentary here and there...

I thank you for your definition in Infantry movement and agree, but I feel that we should wiggle a bit to the positive side, maybe +10% as total.

Somehow it just tickles my belly that you (apparently) should be slower on the "Autobahn" than on the fields.
Wouldn't the bridges be even worse on the rural areas (plains)?
And the damage to roads in plains even worse? (if they were asphalted at all?)

I don't have any sources at hand, but I think in the 30s and 40s some very potent trains were put on the tracks, surely able to move the tanks?

Thanks for your comment!

BR
N

 

[Centurion1973]

@podcat
Will different terrain have varying effect on equipment?

For example: TDs are likely to be less effective in offensive action, but IMO that penalty should be lower, if they are attacking in plains, desert etc, where there is great visibility. And higher penalty in (for example) urban areas.

thx

 

[Secret Master]

Also, if you dig trenches properly, with drainage and wooden support, they will not get affected much, but it is much harder job, takes much more time.

Yes. And you need the materials to do it properly and the know how.

It's easy digging a simple foxhole, but the nice trenchworks of various wars? That's a bit harder and not nearly as impromptu.

And let's be honest. Without some kind of proper drainage, digging in for more than a day or two is an open invitation for a whole list of nasty illnesses.

I know what you mean. They made it a "real" weather engine, and I can't remember the last time I checked the weather before starting a major operation.

I checked the weather before starting the Winter War last time I played.

But I was just checking to make sure we weren't in a blizzard yet, since I only cared about weather conditions than reduced combat efficiency by 99% or more.

 

[juv95hrn]

1. Can you set your air units to not operate in averse weather conditions?

2. Desert fox. Is that a gainable trait?

 

[Secret Master]

2. Desert fox. Is that a gainable trait?

It was in HOI3.