Random weather too random? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

edub180 -> Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 4:43:43 AM)

Hi,
I finally started my first 41-45 campaign as the Germans after playing some of the scenarios and in order to prevent myself from playing with hindsight, I turned off "non-random weather" (BTW, a confusing way of labeling that option, both "random weather" or "historical weather" would have been a little more straightforward). I assumed this would add a little suspense and fun to the game, not knowing when the blizzard will hit, since I'm "only" playing on normal difficulty.

I was indeed surprised by the weather; on turn 3, the Central Soviet Zone became muddy and my Panzers slithered to a halt. Since it was late, I scratched my head, saved the game, and went to bed. When I continued the game today, I decided to load up the save from the end of turn 2 and see if the weather would "change" going in to turn 3. It did, this time around the South Soviet Zone showed mud, and on the third try, the European Zone became muddy. In all cases all the other zones had clear weather.

I'm wondering if this is a bug or WAD. As far as I understood it, the mud phases in WitE are supposed to model the Rasputitsa, basically forcing both sides to cease all major operations, and not just some bad weather in summer. It's only July 3rd on turn 3. So how random is the weather? Blizzards in August?



CarnageINC -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 4:48:39 AM)

The guy to answer your questions for weather is 2ndACR, he has a major gripe about the 'random' weather settings.   I don't recall his test but it turns out random weather isn't so random after all.  Maybe he will post his comments if he sees your thread.



Joel Billings -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 5:19:25 AM)

Each weather zone can get one mud result each summer. This is to simulate the fact that on many occasions the rains and mud would slow operations for several days. Although usually not for an entire week at one time, the only way we could handle this was to allow it to happen once per summer per zone.



JAMiAM -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 5:26:08 AM)

I'd much rather have the "too random" weather than have the 'paint by numbers' weather of the non-random weather. Very few things I hate worse (in a game) than knowing months in advance that it will be a particular weather change on a specific date.

I've played more Axis than Soviets in PBEMs so yes, bad weather has hit me at inopportune times. However, not knowing exactly when Winter will hit, and how variable things get for several turns in Nov/Dec, really adds a level of suspense and tension that are missing when using non-random weather.



edub180 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 5:54:28 AM)

Thanks Joel, this makes perfect sense. It didn't occur to me to look at it as an entire summer's worth of bad weather lumped into one turn. Thanks for the quick answer, I wish everything could come with support this good.

@JAMiAM: Fully agree, and in fact it feels more "historic" that way. After all, it is not like winter came as a surprise to the Germans, they simply hadn't prepared for it, for various reasons. Random weather gives me the same challenge, having to push for as long as possible without knowing when to stop, when to build forts, or pull the Pz Divs back to the cities etc. It just makes the game more intense.




Aurelian -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 5:56:30 AM)

deleted.



jaw -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 1:22:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'd much rather have the "too random" weather than have the 'paint by numbers' weather of the non-random weather. Very few things I hate worse (in a game) than knowing months in advance that it will be a particular weather change on a specific date.

I've played more Axis than Soviets in PBEMs so yes, bad weather has hit me at inopportune times. However, not knowing exactly when Winter will hit, and how variable things get for several turns in Nov/Dec, really adds a level of suspense and tension that are missing when using non-random weather.


I disagree completely. Random weather is a game feature put in to add variety to the game and has nothing to do with real weather variations. Joel can rationalize this all he wants but there is not ONE example of summer rains holding up military operations in Russia for more than a few hours or a day at most and these situations were highly localized not spread across thousands of square miles of territory. In the past few days a massive storm swept through the mid-west of the United States. It dumped 20 inches of snow in Chicago. In Pittsburgh, we had a little freezing rain. Are we in another weather zone? Real random weather is exactly that, too random and freakish to represent accurately in a game with 10 miles hexes and 1 week turns. You might think random weather is more realistic but it is a pure fantasy. I'll stick with non-random weather thank you.





ComradeP -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 1:49:18 PM)

Summer rains storms turning roads into muds did reduce combat intensity on a number of times, or made logistics more difficult to move up. The Germans experienced that early on in the campaign during the battle for Smolensk and preliminary operations. Currently, both sides get a free ride in summer 1941 without any mud.

I would prefer per hex weather (the only real way to represent localized effects of weather) where random would really be random, but that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.



morganbj -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 2:15:50 PM)

The problem, as I see it, is that there are not enough different types of weather. Clear, Mud, Snow, Blizzard. Is that all, or did I miss one?

So, when it's mud, it's mud. Always the same.

Why not have A little Mud, Light Mud, Some Mud, More Mud, A Lot Of Mud, Frickin' QUAGMIRE, etc. (I made all those up.) Add a few more weather types that basically apply some percentage of the effect of that weather type. In the summer, instead of the same mud turn one gets in the fall and spring, the player may get two or three truns of A Little Mud, or More Mud, or something.

The same with Snow.

This could also solve the Blizzard problem (yes, I think there is one) by having Blizzard turns equal 100% of the snow effects, with lesser snow effects possible that would, somewehere on the continuum, include the current Snow turn effects. This would mean the Soviets don't get 10 or so turns in a row, but a few really good turns to attack interspersed with a few pretty good turns for attack. The true Blizzard effects could be much less in the south. So there might be Frost, Light Snow, Snow, Heavy Snow, Blizzard.

Just an idea that will go nowhere, because the devs will not want to deal with it. But, I'm a bettter person for having said it. [;)]



jaw -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 2:40:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Summer rains storms turning roads into muds did reduce combat intensity on a number of times, or made logistics more difficult to move up. The Germans experienced that early on in the campaign during the battle for Smolensk and preliminary operations. Currently, both sides get a free ride in summer 1941 without any mud.

I would prefer per hex weather (the only real way to represent localized effects of weather) where random would really be random, but that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.


I doubt per hex weather would be worth all the computer processing cycles it would take to produce it and you would just end up with an even more unrealistic weather distribution. Face it, without a real weather program which would be more complex than the game itself, random weather is just a game feature. It has no more historical justification than the ability to alter the play balance. There is nothing WRONG with it being a game feature just don't delude yourself into thinking you are being more "realistic" by using it.



stormbringer3 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 3:47:16 PM)

Perhaps a solution would be starting random weather in September. If you get mud in the summer as can happen now, I think it's restart time and a September random weather beginning would take this off the table. 



PMCN -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 4:09:54 PM)

The only thing more realistic about random weather is that you can't predict to the week what the weather will be like 3 months in advance.

Getting a freak early freeze in october was not a fun surprise when I was praying for mud.  If I had been playing a human he would have been happy with the effective 4 weeks less blizzard in 41-42 as well.  The mud in the summer of 41 was once helpful, once harmful and once no effect, so I think that in the end it averages out.  March came in like a lamb and went out like a lion with Mud-Snow-Snow-Blizzard.  The rivers ended up frozen at some level till the start of may.




Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 4:26:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'd much rather have the "too random" weather than have the 'paint by numbers' weather of the non-random weather. Very few things I hate worse (in a game) than knowing months in advance that it will be a particular weather change on a specific date.

I've played more Axis than Soviets in PBEMs so yes, bad weather has hit me at inopportune times. However, not knowing exactly when Winter will hit, and how variable things get for several turns in Nov/Dec, really adds a level of suspense and tension that are missing when using non-random weather.


I disagree completely. Random weather is a game feature put in to add variety to the game and has nothing to do with real weather variations. Joel can rationalize this all he wants but there is not ONE example of summer rains holding up military operations in Russia for more than a few hours or a day at most and these situations were highly localized not spread across thousands of square miles of territory. In the past few days a massive storm swept through the mid-west of the United States. It dumped 20 inches of snow in Chicago. In Pittsburgh, we had a little freezing rain. Are we in another weather zone? Real random weather is exactly that, too random and freakish to represent accurately in a game with 10 miles hexes and 1 week turns. You might think random weather is more realistic but it is a pure fantasy. I'll stick with non-random weather thank you.





+1



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 4:30:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Summer rains storms turning roads into muds did reduce combat intensity on a number of times, or made logistics more difficult to move up. The Germans experienced that early on in the campaign during the battle for Smolensk and preliminary operations. Currently, both sides get a free ride in summer 1941 without any mud.

I would prefer per hex weather (the only real way to represent localized effects of weather) where random would really be random, but that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.


The problem with random weather as currently designed is that it affects vast areas at one go. I had mud on turn 2 from Riga to the Black Sea!

Weather per hex is probably too much to ask for, but a Weather zone grid is not. weather doesn't just change from east to west, as suggested by the game, it also varies hugely from north to south.

At present, if it's blizzard in Leningrad, then it's blizzard in Rostov and that makes no sense at all.

Even the WiTP weather grid, crude as it is, was better than this.



JAMiAM -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 5:22:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I'd much rather have the "too random" weather than have the 'paint by numbers' weather of the non-random weather. Very few things I hate worse (in a game) than knowing months in advance that it will be a particular weather change on a specific date.

I've played more Axis than Soviets in PBEMs so yes, bad weather has hit me at inopportune times. However, not knowing exactly when Winter will hit, and how variable things get for several turns in Nov/Dec, really adds a level of suspense and tension that are missing when using non-random weather.


I disagree completely. Random weather is a game feature put in to add variety to the game and has nothing to do with real weather variations. Joel can rationalize this all he wants but there is not ONE example of summer rains holding up military operations in Russia for more than a few hours or a day at most and these situations were highly localized not spread across thousands of square miles of territory. In the past few days a massive storm swept through the mid-west of the United States. It dumped 20 inches of snow in Chicago. In Pittsburgh, we had a little freezing rain. Are we in another weather zone? Real random weather is exactly that, too random and freakish to represent accurately in a game with 10 miles hexes and 1 week turns. You might think random weather is more realistic but it is a pure fantasy. I'll stick with non-random weather thank you.




Excuse me, but if you're going to quote my post, you should at least read it, and respond to its points. Where did I say anything about it being realistic, or that the weather model was good? I prefer the choice of random weather versus non-random weather because of the variable effect on the game, but this is a choice of picking between two evils.

I just don't understand how you can use the example of the variation of weather in the US, and then choose a system (non-random) that minimizes the variation - claiming that it is somehow superior. It seems a non sequitor to me...[&:]



JAMiAM -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 5:31:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4


The problem with random weather as currently designed is that it affects vast areas at one go. I had mud on turn 2 from Riga to the Black Sea!


Yet, the non-random weather affects even greater areas at one go, since ALL the Soviet weather zones have the exact same weather, with the exact same regularity, for every year of the campaign. How is this utterly predictable effect superior?


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4


At present, if it's blizzard in Leningrad, then it's blizzard in Rostov and that makes no sense at all.


If you're using non-random weather, that is true. However, using random weather gives different effects (within a probabilistic range) for different areas of the map. Now, if you're complaining about how large these zones are, and the lack of any 'granularity of effect' within them, then brother, you are preaching to the choir...



jaw -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/3/2011 6:43:49 PM)

I think you miss my point. I'm not saying Non-random weather is "superior" to Random weather. I'm saying that Non-random weather is historical and Random weather is a game feature only loosely based in reality. Players are free to choose whichever they prefer; just don't think you are being more realistic by choosing random weather.



Tarhunnas -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/4/2011 9:51:52 AM)

I was also surprised to get mud all over Russia in july with random weather. I totally agree with the people above that it is improbable in the extreme that to see summer rains being so persistent as to interrupt military operations to the degree that mud does in the game (though perhaps on second thoughts some vacations of mine spring to mind... [:D]).Apart from realism, the game effects for the Axis of having a mud turn or two interrupt the summer offensive in 41 or 42 are pretty severe. For me this means that non-random weather is dull and too predictable, and random weather is way too unpredictable.

I think that randomness in weather should be more about the autumn mud coming one or two weeks sooner or later.

Speaking of weather, the difference between "snow" and "blizzard" is way too dramatic, but that has been discussed elsewhere... but for randomness, the effects of having a snow turn now and then instead of blizzard is pretty dramatic.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/4/2011 6:44:59 PM)

When you "quoted" me above you omitted my key point which is that what is needed is a more granular weather grid. I have a visualisation of how this might work in my head and will create some mocked up screens over the weekend to explain...



Horst Wessell -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/4/2011 6:53:47 PM)

I really like the random weather option. For me and my friend it makes an exciting game.



JAMiAM -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/4/2011 7:04:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

When you "quoted" me above you omitted my key point which is that what is needed is a more granular weather grid. I have a visualisation of how this might work in my head and will create some mocked up screens over the weekend to explain...

I only touched upon it, in my last sentence, because I think that we are in complete agreement on that aspect of the weather model. I think we need more grids, or zones, and more localized variation of effect within them. However, I don't think that level of simulation is likely given some developer statements.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 3:04:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

When you "quoted" me above you omitted my key point which is that what is needed is a more granular weather grid. I have a visualisation of how this might work in my head and will create some mocked up screens over the weekend to explain...

I only touched upon it, in my last sentence, because I think that we are in complete agreement on that aspect of the weather model. I think we need more grids, or zones, and more localized variation of effect within them. However, I don't think that level of simulation is likely given some developer statements.


OK, thanks.

Here is a 'simple' solution to the weather model. Fix the weather, by season, in the top right square. Base the weather on adjacent squares on a random die roll, but limit the possibilities based on the season AND the adjacent weather conditions. This would allow bad weather to spread west and south in the autumn, but with a degree of randomness, and retreat east and north in the spring, again with variability.

Given that we are talking about the decisive conflict of World War Two (if not in all of modern history) and that its outcome was decided as much by the weather as by other factors, not to make some attempt to model it realistically is simply unacceptable IMO.

(Remember - this is a concept image. Please - no posts asking 'Why does it say mud in the Baltic States?')

[image]local://upfiles/27287/F1242F3DBF4D469092E3521F42E7F9BB.jpg[/image]



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 3:11:50 PM)

Autumn

[image]local://upfiles/27287/25B5030A8BC94CD3853139484CCD6390.jpg[/image]



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 3:12:20 PM)

Spring

[image]local://upfiles/27287/45AA8667DF89461BAAAB9E5C0CC5A3B4.jpg[/image]



JAMiAM -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 5:15:45 PM)

RedMarkus,

Interesting concept. Well thought out. Since we're brainstorming here, I would further suggest that the die-roll of the zones should be based not only on the seasonal weighting, but also by the conditions in adjacent zones. Thus, you would tend to create actual front conditions. Given your proposal of how the weather should 'flow' from or to the upper right corner, the weighting algorithm would need to take this directability into account.

Good discussion!



Magnum88 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 5:20:33 PM)

I think a granular weather system and one with some sort of pattern sound like excellent improvements but also sound like a fairly large changes that will not be quick to implement.

One thing that I think would help the current arrangement is a forecast system for each zone's next week weather. I understand weather forecasting even today is not completely accurate but the forecast would be only for the next week and is a big picture forecast for a huge region. It also helps overcome the massive scale of the current weather zones allowing you to prepare for the Mud at least a little before being 100 MPs from your railheads and isolated (and having your panzer divisons getting their asses handed to them by some half-strength, half-trained rifle division).



FredSanford3 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 6:53:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

I think a granular weather system and one with some sort of pattern sound like excellent improvements but also sound like a fairly large changes that will not be quick to implement.

One thing that I think would help the current arrangement is a forecast system for each zone's next week weather. I understand weather forecasting even today is not completely accurate but the forecast would be only for the next week and is a big picture forecast for a huge region. It also helps overcome the massive scale of the current weather zones allowing you to prepare for the Mud at least a little before being 100 MPs from your railheads and isolated (and having your panzer divisons getting their asses handed to them by some half-strength, half-trained rifle division).


+1 on the forecast. Maybe even put some uncertainty- 60% clear, 40% mud for a spring or fall 'typical' forecast, to say 90-100% clear, 0-10% mud in the summer. So on for all seasons and zones. Combined with Redmarkus's maps and 'shifting' concept, that'd be a pretty cool weather model. I wonder what the level of effort to implement would be?



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 6:54:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

RedMarkus,

Interesting concept. Well thought out. Since we're brainstorming here, I would further suggest that the die-roll of the zones should be based not only on the seasonal weighting, but also by the conditions in adjacent zones. Thus, you would tend to create actual front conditions. Given your proposal of how the weather should 'flow' from or to the upper right corner, the weighting algorithm would need to take this directability into account.

Good discussion!


Agreed! The adjacent zone is a definite factor in what happens in any given zone each turn. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

So, if zone x is clear at the moment, but the adjacent zones to the east have mud, you better look out for mud in the next turn or two...



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 6:55:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

I think a granular weather system and one with some sort of pattern sound like excellent improvements but also sound like a fairly large changes that will not be quick to implement.

One thing that I think would help the current arrangement is a forecast system for each zone's next week weather. I understand weather forecasting even today is not completely accurate but the forecast would be only for the next week and is a big picture forecast for a huge region. It also helps overcome the massive scale of the current weather zones allowing you to prepare for the Mud at least a little before being 100 MPs from your railheads and isolated (and having your panzer divisons getting their asses handed to them by some half-strength, half-trained rifle division).



With the suggestion above you can do your own forecasts - what's coming down the line in weather terms can be assessed from what is happening next door.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Random weather too random? (2/5/2011 6:57:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

I think a granular weather system and one with some sort of pattern sound like excellent improvements but also sound like a fairly large changes that will not be quick to implement.

One thing that I think would help the current arrangement is a forecast system for each zone's next week weather. I understand weather forecasting even today is not completely accurate but the forecast would be only for the next week and is a big picture forecast for a huge region. It also helps overcome the massive scale of the current weather zones allowing you to prepare for the Mud at least a little before being 100 MPs from your railheads and isolated (and having your panzer divisons getting their asses handed to them by some half-strength, half-trained rifle division).


+1 on the forecast. Maybe even put some uncertainty- 60% clear, 40% mud for a spring or fall 'typical' forecast, to say 90-100% clear, 0-10% mud in the summer. So on for all seasons and zones. Combined with Redmarkus's maps and 'shifting' concept, that'd be a pretty cool weather model. I wonder what the level of effort to implement would be?


Where it says "Based on die roll, weighted by season" in my diagram, that's the random factor. What is meant is that no die roll will give you snow in the summer or mud following blizzard without a snow turn in between, but you could have mud in just one square and clear in all the surrounding ones...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125