Mud Movement penalties seem low

[Gordons HQ]

This seems an excellent discussion.
I'm afraid I'm not into all the technicalities of it but I do believe movement cost are at present far too generous.
The storm idea sounds good to me apart from the visibility being reduced to 1km which would not always follow with mud.
The only thing I would add is from what I've read and that's pretty extensive about the East Front is that the Mud seemed to effect the Germans far more than the Russians. This was in particular true of the tanks during the early period of the campaign due to the track thickness of the tanks.
I suppose also they were the ones generally advancing during these periods of mud and wanting to cover greater distances.
That's my take on things for waht it's worth.

Cheers,
Gordon

[Midge]

Some interesting knowledgeable well informed posts.....................But......... I've been Wargaming now for almost 30 years.................. paper, card, board, miniatures and computer and the most important things I consider when playing a game is "Playability and fun". Doesn't matter how pretty or realistic it looks if it doesn't play and its not fun its not worth the papaer card or in this case the CD Rom its printed on.
Yes the points raised are valid and accurate but squelching around in the mud moving 1 to 3 hexes a turn is about as interesting as your average political speech !!

[Glenn Saunders]

Some interesting knowledgeable well informed posts.....................But

Hear Hear - am damn Glad someone stood up and said this.

Well said Midge!

On the design side, we walk a very fine line with every title on playable in a number of ways -OOB Detail, speed and pace of paly - everything.

Glenn

[Bacillus98]

In my opinion, realism in a wargame should translate to how well does the game implement the aspects of war that is supposed to model. To its credit, the current incarnations of the Panzer Campaigns series seem do most of this quite well according to the veterans of the game. Also, there is an inherent advantage in using computers to help with the simulation. However, in its current state, the stock PzC Moscow 41 campaign has German armor/motorized units moving too fast in heavy mud, especially motorized units. Based on some information I analyzed, it states that despite muddy conditions, the Wehrmacht was able to move, albeit much slower than the summer offensives. I plan to speak with a local military history professor soon to hopefully obtain more info in regards to the campaign. A few historical examples of mud movement include three German corps that managed to move 70-80 km in 5 days. 1st Panzer Division was able to move 75 km in 5 days. All of this indicates tactical movement slower than stock speeds. Wheeled vehicles had an extremely difficult time on or off road. Between Oct. 24-Nov. 13th, there was an operational pause between both sides. AGC was only able to conduct limited offensives during this period. The Russians were scrambling reserves to form some semblance of a defensive line in front of Moscow. I apologize if my view on realism is a thorn in the side of playability. I naturally assumed since the computer can do all the number crunching, a representation of fairly realistic movement in adverse conditions isn't something that should be avoided. Slow movement in the mud is akin to the slogging attritional battles like Kursk or wide open encirclement maneuvers like Smolensk, different flavors for different folks. I do also realize this is something that isn't a one step solution as Glenn has mentioned. All I ask is that it should be considered to a stronger degree that it is now. I'd love to help anyone by giving them info on applicable campaigns in regards to combat operations/movement in inclement weather.
In summary, the view of many historians have indicated that Russian weather (including Rasputitsa) and German High Command strategic mistakes saved the Russians in 1941. I want to end the post with a few pictures of "General Mud" to get a sense of what those virtual counters are encountering :)

NOTE: I edited this post several times so some of what was read may have been removed. I blame it on the redbull...

[Midge]

Again Bacillus a well informed post...............if squelching round in "General Mud" is what dings your dong change your pdt settings and fill your boots (with mud).
Thats one of the luxury's of this system you can change pretty much what you wish.
If your aim is to officially change things so we all have to play in your mud bath I doubt very much if that'll happen.
You could always create your own scenario with your pdt settings set to realistically represent mud movement and people are free to download it if they find it appealing. As for me I can only think of one scenario I'd find appealing in the mud ............ and that involves my neighbours wife wearing very little !

[Ricky B]

Interesting Midge, do you play with storms on? They really have an even more serious impact on both movement and combat than mud, which really only impacts movement. Also, the infantry, especially Soviet, already are limited in mud to 1-2 hexes per turn, and a lot of towed guns (horse maybe) can only move that far.

So my question is do you really see allowing tanks and motorized infantry to move far but not infantry and guns as being more fun than limiting everything to a couple of hexes?

From my POV, a scenario that is mud from start to finish isn't going to be much fun, but if it is a 3 day scenario and 1 day has mud, that is okay. But keep the movement allowances for the units in sync with each other - and to me that means mud should slow down all the units to about the same speed, at least if it is heavy mud.

As to fun over realism, if it isn't fun then it isn't worth doing - so ignore the mud battles if that is all there is in it - where there was very little action anyway - or make the mud work so it is fun, but still realistic/accurate. For me that means that mud impacts infantry less than tanks - which would be the heavy mud and anything less than heavy mud is "soft" - and mud should be very rare as a result. We talked earlier about mud being lesser and greater, but writing this I think I now see light mud as the soft conditions, while mud would be rare, generally not more than a day, and it should be like the above pics and keep tanks down to walking speed of the infantry.

That puts all units on the same footing which seems very historical - and if it is a "playability and fun" question which is paramount to me also, then why would allowing only takes and motorized infantry the power to zoom around in mud and nothing else make any sense, or add to the fun? Trust me, having played Soviets in a mud scenario recently, where most infantry could move a single hex per turn, while the German tanks moved around at 8-10 hexes at a time isolating all my infantry a piece at a time, it sure wasn't any fun for my Soviet side at all, and unrealistic to boot. An alternative would be to keep the infantry movement up also, which if that is your primary criteria would balance things also.

Rick

[NicholasBell]

One cannot take historical movement rates and just divide by the number of turns to determine movement rates for the simple fact you don't know how much time the actual units were *not* moving. If you have never been in the Army it's difficult to understand how much time is spent waiting around, not to mention how much time is spent not moving getting ready to move (maintenance, supply, briefings, etc). There is also this little thing called the "command cycle" which we as players skip altogether. It takes time in real life to make plans, disseminate orders, and then prepare and implement them. Then thrown in time spent discovering and correcting all the mistakes and misunderstood orders.

So in real life those units you push to the maximum each turn should move 1 turn and then sit for 2-3 turns before moving again.

Not saying there isn't room for some tweaking the movement rates, but be careful before you make it impossible to achieve historical results at all. There is a cascading effect when you make a change here are there.

A few more points. The mud affected the Soviets as much as the Germans in terms of operational mobility. They knew and planned for it (and halted operations for the most part if you noticed...) . The Germans of course were not ready, but if you follow their movements during the Vyzama and Briansk operations, they managed to move a heck of a lot more than you would just reading about their difficulties. What really killed them was the breakdown in supply which occurred before the mud period and only got worse with the mud.

Also, you should take note that mud is only mentioned as a factor when one side or another needs an excuse why they lost. Take note on how mud is *not* mentioned in the fall of 1943 (Zhitomir offensive) but is mentioned as a problem for the Germans during the relief of Cherkassy. And while the Soviets launched a major offensive in the spring of 1944, the mud somehow only became a problem when they started to lose control of the situation. Oddly enough, that same mud did not seem to bother "Hube's Pocket" that much. And there are plenty of examples of mud being a non-issue for both sides despite being in it.

Before I get off my soapbox, please remember one thing when reading military history - every writer has an agenda. And remember Dunnigan's oft-quoted remark (paraphrased here) that for a wargame to be successful it has to at least maintain the illusion of movement. (this is supposed to be fun, no?)

My 2 cents - from one who has moved real units in knee-deep boot-sucking German mud.

[Glenn Saunders]

.... and thanks for your valuable input here once again Nick.

Glenn

[Volcano Man]

I do agree with the posts that say that the game must still be "fun", with "fun" being something completely subjective to each user's definition, but we also have to keep in mind that it should also be semi-realistic/plausible as well. The balance comes from keeping it both fun and semi-realistic, which is what requires all the creative thinking to begin with. Both facets can be achieved, you just have to take care not to go too far one way or the other, lest you end up with something that isn't fun at all to play, or you end up with something that is pure fantasy.

Having said all that, the community shouldn't want to restrict movement to one or two hexes per turn for everything, that is a knee jerk response in the opposite extreme. However, there is certainly nothing wrong with curtailing mechanized unit mud movement rates from what is currently possible. Anyway, my point being, it is a balancing act sure -- but certainly a change that is possible while still remaining in the realm of "fun", again, something of which is completely subjective. I find comments about "fun" to be quite humorous really; "fun" is probably not something that the Russian player (or the defending side) is having while the German player (or the attacking side) is zooming around in the mud isolating their units! "Fun" could very well be that the day that mud occurs, the defending side is granted a period of respite. So, surely what is "fun" solely depends on which side you are playing and what the circumstances are, and is not something an extensive argument should be based on given that there are two sides in every scenario (ie. in a scenario, what is "fun" for one side is not necessarily "fun" for the other). ;)

[Ricky B]

Well said VM, I think your comments summarize what I feel very well!

Rick