How does temperature change in this game?

[Ffire]

If Germany had taken Moscow or even surrounded it in late summer before turning south to the Ukraine

That's maybe the most famous what if of ww2. I don't think Germans could have taken Moscow easily with the full ukrainian army threathening their flanks. And if Moscow capture isn't sufficient to bring Stalin to negotiations, the german are in bad spot for winter with a front line twice longer than historically. So you trade a garanteed success (Ukraine encirclement, 700k troops eliminated in one battle, the biggest victory in all mankind history), for one hypothetical success, but that had the potential to end the war. It's a gamble
Imho the true strategic mistake is that they planned since day 1 to defeat soviet union in one single 6 months campaign, fearing a western invasion. This stress was the main reason they keep pushing even in November. Staying on the defensive after viazma isn't a gamble, and they could resume their attack in spring 42 after the soviet winter counter offensive failed vs an entrenched wechmacht.

Needless to say, weather in the game is not much of a factor right now. I do not think the attrition is enough of a deterrent or has enough effect. I still hope it gets fixed. It will take a hell of a lot of rebalancing if it does get fixed. It will also require a toggle on the army screen for automatically halting offensive operations during adverse conditions. We would never be able to keep up with pausing operations during inclement weather, night, etc. manually.

Another problem is : How the AI can handle that? Atm increasing any attrition would led the AI to waste all equipment during the first winter.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

That's maybe the most famous what if of ww2. I don't think Germans could have taken Moscow easily with the full ukrainian army threathening their flanks. And if Moscow capture isn't sufficient to bring Stalin to negotiations, the german are in bad spot for winter with a front line twice longer than historically. So you trade a garanteed success (Ukraine encirclement, 700k troops eliminated in one battle, the biggest victory in all mankind history), for one hypothetical success, but that had the potential to end the war. It's a gamble

Reason why Operation Barbarossa is more deadly (in terms of tactical casualties) than Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The army groups invaded in three different prongs, creating a relatively flat front line. Unlike Napoleon's pointy thrust towards Moscow, the Germans can prevent the Soviets from concentrating their defenses on one route of advance, allowing them to encircle and destroy many armies (whereas in Napoleonic times, the Russians keep retreating). This explains the necessity of Ukraine encirclement, to ensure no salient for Soviet counterattacks.

Imho the true strategic mistake is that they planned since day 1 to defeat soviet union in one single 6 months campaign, fearing a western invasion. This stress was the main reason they keep pushing even in November. Staying on the defensive after viazma isn't a gamble, and they could resume their attack in spring 42 after the soviet winter counter offensive failed vs an entrenched wechmacht.

I don't think staying on the defensive is a good idea, given that the Soviets can mobilize a lot of troops and use the time to form a strong defensive line in front of Moscow. This means the chance of taking Moscow in 1942 is slim. Better use the opportunity given when the Vyazma-Bryansk encirclement opened a big hole in front of Moscow (at this point, the Soviets no longer outnumbered the Germans in active manpower). The ultimate goal is to cripple Soviet Union economically by taking the Caucasus region. The Germans were also desperate for fuel. So take Moscow now in 1941, and then focus on the south in 1942. Of course, bad intelligence on the part of Germans failed to predict Soviet reserves used for counter-offensive.

 

[Ffire]

I don't think staying on the defensive is a good idea, given that the Soviets can mobilize a lot of troops and use the time to form a strong defensive line in front of Moscow. This means the chance of taking Moscow in 1942 is slim.

The doctrine and the behaviour of red army during and before 41 advocate for a flat out offensive. They always tried to push anytime they could with poor results. It's strategically coherent for germans to think that soviet will still act that way. It's even more plausible when you consider soviet behavior in spring 42 (Karkov 2nd) and during winter 42-43 (Skachok operation). Their tactical inferiority against the battle hardened 41' Wechmacht would led to a bloodbath. And if germans were in position to start another very dangerous offensive (Fall Blau) even after suffering heavy losses during winter 41, you can imagine with more forces and a diminished opponent they could take Moscow. Ofc that's a what if, just my personnal guess

The ultimate goal is to cripple Soviet Union economically by taking the Caucasus region. The Germans were also desperate for fuel.

German were able to fill their panzer until 44'. That's them loosing the air battle vs anglo-US bombers that cause them to loose their synth and Romanian oil fields. Caucasus region was not the solution : when they took the Maikop oil field (the only caucasus field they manage to conquer), it had been fully destroyed by soviet engineer. So much that german experts evaluated easier to drill another one rather trying to repair. So we're talking about something that takes at least one year in peace time, under threat of strategic bombing, while railway is used for military purpose. And the problem of bringing back the oil to Germany is still there : Romanian fluvial tankers are already used at max capacity so you need to build a pipeline from Caucasus to Germany. Good luck.
About soviet union, no one know even today exactly how much oil they had in reserve in Ural. There was also an oil field there, not much used, but with capacities that could be increased if needed. Finally through lend lease, they could have more oil (and less of something else ofc). Is that enough to prevent soviet collapse ? we don't have and probably will never have enough data to answer.

 

[Dalos]

For that to happen the AI would need to have at least some grasp of weather. As far as I know, right now it does not consider weather at all, never mind to an extent that would allow proper reactions in extreme weather conditions. Given the frequency and severity, mud is currently maybe the worst weather condition and the AI has no way to deal with it.

Neither do I... I ignore the weather completely...

But of course if AI would not be able to handle it, better leave it as it is...

 

[SophieX]

And we are only talking about the weather in the combat-zone...not about the conditions for the supply to reach the front ( it's always not easy to find a good compromise between game and reality ).

 

[I had a bad name 99]

The doctrine and the behaviour of red army during and before 41 advocate for a flat out offensive. They always tried to push anytime they could with poor results...Their tactical inferiority against the battle hardened 41' Wechmacht would led to a bloodbath.

I have to agree with this. The German tactical doctrine of using MG42 squad with riflemen as supporting elements can allow them to set up extremely defensive position, beating off multiple Soviet riflemen.

And if germans were in position to start another very dangerous offensive (Fall Blau) even after suffering heavy losses during winter 41, you can imagine with more forces and a diminished opponent they could take Moscow. Ofc that's a what if, just my personnal guess

I believe both sides were roughly equal on Fall Blau (a million plus men). Just poor tactical deployment on the part of Germans and the surprising counter-offensive by the Soviets (the same mistake made by Germans during Battle of Moscow -- poor intelligence, not sure why they never learnt their lesson).

German were able to fill their panzer until 44'. That's them loosing the air battle vs anglo-US bombers that cause them to loose their synth and Romanian oil fields. Caucasus region was not the solution : when they took the Maikop oil field (the only caucasus field they manage to conquer), it had been fully destroyed by soviet engineer.

I thought Gronzy and Baku were the real winners on terms of oil reserves? Romania oil field and Maikop can only provide a fraction of what these two can offer...

 

[DaleDVM]

Neither do I... I ignore the weather completely...

But of course if AI would not be able to handle it, better leave it as it is...

All you have to do is toggle the AI to only attack in decent conditions and pause in bad weather. Attacking in inclement weather should be a desperate tactic that should be costly. The AI could be made to avoid it altogether. We just need a combat toggle to turn missions off in bad weather.

Considering Gronzy and Baku... The key for the German offensive was to stop the Russians from using the oil in the Caucuses for themselves. From June 1941 through the end of the European war, Azerbaijan produced 75 million tonnes of crude oil, 80% of the union’s petrol, 90% of its naphtha, and 96% of its lubricants. Also If the Germans take the oil fields in 1942 in a couple of years they could have built up considerable infrastructure. Enough that they likely would not have been suffering great shortages in 1944. At the same time the USSR would have been struggling with fuel. They would have needed an entirely new set of infrastructure to take advantage of any imported oil or resources in the Urals. With these substantial infrastructure costs and a shortage of fuel the Russian war machine would have been hindered greatly.

 

[billcorr]

I think you should be notified when the really bad weather happens (not to check all province by yourself) and it should matter. A lot.

Good point.

The notification of really bad weather could be a visual or auditory cue.

IIRC, there are audio cues associated with weather. But my ear is not trained to know what all those sounds mean.

We could help the developers by describing the visual cues that we players want for really bad weather.

For example:

"Dear Podcat developer, when then a province is experiencing a blizzard, please depict that blizzard by painting the province a titanium white. Thank you very much for the work you do. With greatest respect, Bill "

​

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Also If the Germans take the oil fields in 1942 in a couple of years they could have built up considerable infrastructure. Enough that they likely would not have been suffering great shortages in 1944. At the same time the USSR would have been struggling with fuel. They would have needed an entirely new set of infrastructure to take advantage of any imported oil or resources in the Urals. With these substantial infrastructure costs and a shortage of fuel the Russian war machine would have been hindered greatly.

Hitler was already a madman to invade Western Russia in the first place, despite experts' advice that it would be an economical drain overall.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Hitler was already a madman to invade Western Russia in the first place, despite experts' advice that it would be an economical drain overall.

Not quite a madman. He just thought that to become a world power, Germany would need its "own India" and thought Continental russia suitable.
Had he been right about the condition of the soviet union, that could have well worked.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Not quite a madman. He just thought that to become a world power, Germany would need its "own India" and thought Continental russia suitable.
Had he been right about the condition of the soviet union, that could have well worked.

It is strange that we live in modern times, and remember this guy more vividly than other world conquerors. Perhaps peaceful times have made us too soft, politically correct and afraid to step out of the boundaries "to conquer the world". But then, if Hitler successfully subjugated the Soviet Union, I highly doubted he can just go on and conquer the rest of the world, like the Western media led us to believe. It will take him time to undertake his Lebensraum policies (dude is a visionary), killing off many Slavs and using the land for Germans to populate. Yes, the world may become more cruel and dystopian than now (is the current world as ideal with politicians as talking heads?) ... but people still have to lead a normal life.. Probably, it will eventually split up like the Mongol empire (different parts go to different heirs), after his death all what... Because internal division and complex politics are what keep things not as simple as playing a video game...

I thought this video by Alex the Rambler:

, is a perfect example of the kind of post-Axis-victory world. Check out 3:52. Anyway, I digress from topic because the word "world power" reminds me of why we play this game -- to recreate history...

 

[Zauberelefant]

It is strange that we live in modern times, and remember this guy more vividly than other world conquerors. Perhaps peaceful times have made us too soft, politically correct and afraid to step out of the boundaries "to conquer the world". But then, if Hitler successfully subjugated the Soviet Union, I highly doubted he can just go on and conquer the rest of the world, like the Western media led us to believe. It will take him time to undertake his Lebensraum policies (dude is a visionary), killing off many Slavs and using the land for Germans to populate. Yes, the world may become more cruel and dystopian than now (is the current world as ideal with politicians as talking heads?) ... but people still have to lead a normal life.. Probably, it will eventually split up like the Mongol empire (different parts go to different heirs), after his death all what... Because internal division and complex politics are what keep things not as simple as playing a video game...

I thought this video by Alex the Rambler:

, is a perfect example of the kind of post-Axis-victory world. Check out 3:52. Anyway, I digress from topic because the word "world power" reminds me of why we play this game -- to recreate history...

Full Agreement.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Don't know why people say weather is not important. The Blizzard is affecting my recovery rate for organisation. And this is important because I am rushing a huge offensive...

 

[bitmode]

Don't know why people say weather is not important. The Blizzard is affecting my recovery rate for organisation. And this is important because I am rushing a huge offensive...

It is an important factor; I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But it is one factor among many, like fortifications, rivers, fuel, air superiority, supply etc. Assuming a player wants/needs to ignore some game systems to concentrate more on other parts, it will rarely be fatal to ignore weather instead of something else. And the AI basically does that too.

Edit: btw, why are you coloring all your armies green? Doesn't it make it much harder to manage frontlines?

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Edit: btw, why are you coloring all your armies green? Doesn't it make it much harder to manage frontlines?

Just aesthetics purpose. My previous gameplay has different random colors. I am confident my micromanagement can deal with it.

Edit: there is a practical purpose. Cos i am managing so many armies. Too many different colors can mess up my eyesight. Green simply represent land. While blue means water like marines.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

Another edit: dark blue means divisions with special enhancement (like more AA) or something
Dark red means reserve
Purple means unassigned general

 

[DaleDVM]

Don't know why people say weather is not important. The Blizzard is affecting my recovery rate for organisation. And this is important because I am rushing a huge offensive...

Did the blizzard weather make you think twice about attacking in it? Obviously not. Therefore the blizzard is not important.

The blizzard weather slows down combat. It lowers the attack values, gain of organization, of both the attacker and the defender by the exact same numbers. Weather slows down conflict it does not change who wins it. If your units are taking forever to regain organization you can take some solace in the fact that the defenders are hampered in the exact same way as you are.

Once weather affects the attacker greater than the defender, which it should, then it will be a determining factor on whether launching an offensive in a blizzard is a good idea or not, Everyone knows doing an offensive in inclement weather is a bad idea. Launching an offensive in a blizzard should be punishing to an attacker and they should take heavy losses compared to normal. In the game this does not happen. So what do players do? They ignore the weather.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

If your units are taking forever to regain organization you can take some solace in the fact that the defenders are hampered in the exact same way as you are.

While tactically both sides are slowed, the strategic reason is that I am on a disadvantage. Because i was trying to get to Berlin as soon as possible (the enemy has 3x my planes -- now they were down because I nuked their industries). It is like the Ardennes Counteroffensive, both the Germans and Allies were slowed down by the weather. But the Germans were trying to get to Antwerp as fast as possible while the Allied planes are still grounded by bad weather. Once the weather clears up, Allied air power would destroy the German armored columns no matter how superior they were on the ground.

Launching an offensive in a blizzard should be punishing to an attacker

Also, I am not sure whether the blizzard was a main consideration in war. Cos whenever I read history, they never mentioned that the weather is going to kill them. At most, weather is used as a way to choose the right time and place for fighting. Like the example above (bad weather can impede enemy air superiority temporarily). Especially in a modern war with fuel to burn and concrete urban areas to keep warm, I don't think it is as bad as in the past when cavemen had to wear animal fur or hide in vulnerable huts.

Edit: The Germans did plan to take Moscow before winter comes...

But I agree with you about the rest.

 

[DaleDVM]

Because i was trying to get to Berlin as soon as possible (the enemy has 3x my planes -- now they were down because I nuked their industries).

Also, I am not sure whether the blizzard was a main consideration in war.

I am 100% sure that blizzards were a major consideration when planning to launch an offensive.

It is my desire for the game to simulate weather's effect on ground combat realistically enough that in this situation your plan should fail miserably. Why? Because you planned to do this quick strike in the wrong season of the year. A blizzard is not cold weather, nor is it just snow. It is a storm during the winter. A storm that often leaves behind enough snow to seriously hinder movement of men and material until warm weather arrives. Hence why few major offensives were planned during the winter.

Luckily in the game the aircraft are severely hindered during a blizzard. The land combat is not yet accurately depicted IMHO. Your winter offensive should only work if you have a large superiority in forces or troops that are specially trained in winter warfare. Blizzard should give the defender a substantial advantage in combat.

 

[I had a bad name 99]

I am 100% sure that blizzards were a major consideration when planning to launch an offensive.

It is my desire for the game to simulate weather's effect on ground combat realistically enough that in this situation your plan should fail miserably. Why? Because you planned to do this quick strike in the wrong season of the year. A blizzard is not cold weather, nor is it just snow. It is a storm during the winter. A storm that often leaves behind enough snow to seriously hinder movement of men and material until warm weather arrives. Hence why few major offensives were planned during the winter.

Luckily in the game the aircraft are severely hindered during a blizzard. The land combat is not yet accurately depicted IMHO. Your winter offensive should only work if you have a large superiority in forces or troops that are specially trained in winter warfare. Blizzard should give the defender a substantial advantage in combat.

In my game though, my winter offensive works mainly because I have large superiority in force. Same for the battle of Moscow, the reserves that arrived gave the Soviets a 2:1 advantage in troop deployment. So even if this has been in summer, the Germans would still be pushed back from the Moscow due to overextended lines and low combat strength from continuous fighting (not necessarily from winter).

Quote from Wikipedia: Although the Wehrmacht's offensive had been stopped, German intelligence estimated that Soviet forces had no more reserves left and thus would be unable to stage a counteroffensive.

In other words, it is bad intelligence that kills the Germans, not the winter ,which is generally thought of as a decisive factor.