weather

[unmerged(50618)]

Has anyone ever wondered why the attack modifier for infantry in a blizzard is (-70) and the defender's is (-33)??? I realize there is historical data to support inclement weather favors the defender but , in game terms, why not simply make the attacker (-37) and the defender (0)? Is this not simply adding unnecessary additional calculations? As it stands now, does this not ALSO have the affect of reducing overall casualties? Is there any historical precedent to support that less casualties occur in bad weather? On the contrary, I believe I read (all else being equal) casualties tend to be HIGHER during bad weather (removing air support from the equation of course). Any thoughts here?

 

[unmerged(47103)]

With respect to your suggestion, it means extreme weather would not be as debilitating in total i.e. at 30% effectiveness on the attack, you need 3.3 divisions to make the same combat power of a single div. in clear weather. With your solution, that changes to needing roughly 1.5 (i.e. 1.5 x (100-37) = 94.5%). So, while the performance difference is the 'same' numerically (i.e. a gap of 37% absolutely), the effect would be to make all divs more effective than currently the case.

I think it's hard to see how a div. defending in a blizzard could be as effective as one in clear weather.

Looking at it from a different angle, with an attacker at 30% and a defender at 67%, each defending div. is twice as effective as an attacker. Under your proposal, this ratio changes to 1.5 times (100% against 63%).

I guess what I'm driving at is it's not just the straight numerical values of each that matter, but also the relative values.

As to casualties etc, there's a very interesting thread reviewing the entire ground combat system and its consequences, in which the issue of casualties is covered. If I can find it I'll post a link to it in here.

 

[blue emu]

Has anyone ever wondered why the attack modifier for infantry in a blizzard is (-70) and the defender's is (-33)??? I realize there is historical data to support inclement weather favors the defender but , in game terms, why not simply make the attacker (-37) and the defender (0)? Is this not simply adding unnecessary additional calculations? As it stands now, does this not ALSO have the affect of reducing overall casualties?

In what sense does it reduce casualties?

In this game, battles are not fought just for an hour or for a certain number of hours and then called off... they are fought until one side or the other breaks and withdraws.

The weather modifiers have little-to-no effect on the number of casualties each side takes before one side or the other reaches the breaking point... instead the negative weather modifiers tend to slow down the tempo of the battle. This is perfectly historical, since both aimed fire and manoever are adversely affected by blizzard conditions.

In the end, the attacker's casualties will be higher than normal... not just because he faces a higher penalty from the weather conditions... but also because the slower tempo of the battle almost guarantees that a signifigant part of the battle will be fought at night, with a corresponding increase in the attacker's casualties.

 

[unmerged(50618)]

In what sense does it reduce casualties?

In this game, battles are not fought just for an hour or for a certain number of hours and then called off... they are fought until one side or the other breaks and withdraws.

The weather modifiers have little-to-no effect on the number of casualties each side takes before one side or the other reaches the breaking point... instead the negative weather modifiers tend to slow down the tempo of the battle. This is perfectly historical, since both aimed fire and manoever are adversely affected by blizzard conditions.

In the end, the attacker's casualties will be higher than normal... not just because he faces a higher penalty from the weather conditions... but also because the slower tempo of the battle almost guarantees that a signifigant part of the battle will be fought at night, with a corresponding increase in the attacker's casualties.

I don't get it... the modifiers for blizzard conditions and night conditions are identical so what does that have to do with anything?

As far as reducing casualties, well, if the attacker has a bigger penalty listed in the 'attack penalty' text than the defender has listed in the 'defender penalty' text, does the attacker not suffer more? Or are you telling me if I give a PLUS 200 to the attacker in blizzard conditions this will have 'little or no affect' as you put it.