Rain, snow & sand -- How they should factor

**Lacedaemon** · August 07, 2012, 06:54 PM

Alright -- This is another thing that bugged me a lot in RTW1. Rain had some, but minimal effect on the battles along with snow and sand. These were large factors that played into battles and ultimately led to victories and losses in deadlock match ups. So here is what I think should happen with it --

Weather in General -- It should be stated in the game battle preview the weather of the battle before you engage in it. This way you can wait on attacks until they become most favorable to your attack style. This could also be shown via campaign map, with little thunder clouds or sand storms rolling over one area.

Rain -- Rain is really the most undervalued battle influence in RTW1 only affecting the launching of arrows and projectiles. In battle rain would do a ton more to combatants, as hills would become nigh on unscalable, orders lost in the tumult of the water pounding on steel, and the general unhappiness of everyone caught in the rain. Feasibly, I see morale being dropped in game along with much slower movement up hills and some misplaced orders(Charging without command, larger delays between command and movement) along with more deaths bye falling in siege attacks with people slipping on wet flag stones to a nice earthy grave. This would add a lot more depth and planning to game play and strategy's.

Snow -- An even bigger dampener than rain, snow should cause slower movement and decreases in morale unless barbarian or otherwise nations that live in snowy areas. To the Romans, the winters in Gaul would be hell, and they would slowly move through the snow stumbling and unable to march in thick drifts that ultimately lower morale, and decrease organisation. Ford crossing on rivers would also cause random chances of deaths, as numb legs were often carried out bye strong currents and drowned in the frigid waters of ancient rivers.

Sand Storms -- Sand in General should cause slower movement unless on chariot or such, and it would be really good to see obscured vision and certain Carthaginian/Numidian/Egyptian troops able to camouflage and be unseen while moving in the sand storms as it was there element.

In conclusion these would not only increase immersion, but show a lot of the home-field advantages cultures had in the surrounding climates. This would add further to some of the great extremes conquering armies had to learn to endure or die while in combat on conquest, and would add to the longevity and fun of the campaigns and there strategies.

**Godless Pickle** · August 07, 2012, 07:01 PM

On the note of natural disasters it would be damn cool if a monsoon, snow storm, or avalanche would suddenly engulf the battlefield. Also, to what ability did the Romans and civilizations of their time period have of predicting weather patterns? If that was implemented, commanders, depending on their nations technology, could somewhat predict the weather and apply that to the battlefield.

**Lacedaemon** · August 07, 2012, 07:05 PM

I don't know of any weather predictors, but if you are referring to the knowing the weather on the campaign map, it would just be considered 'the current weather'. Also, I think it would be cool as well if you engaged in a battle right near a monsoon and you saw rain whipping around flooded areas. Especially seeing as armies churned most dirt into mud after fighting, the rain would just make mud slides and unstable ground in general.

**DarthRuanek** · August 07, 2012, 07:23 PM

RTW (and later games) did allow the attacker to pick which weather to attack in. That's why the "wait" option is there (symbolizing waiting a day to attack, with new weather). Since each turn represents at the very least a few months, having weather show on the campaign map really wouldn't make sense.

Having orders be lost or confused may be somewhat realistic but it would be really annoying from a gameplay perspective. I don't think it should be added.

**SturmChurro** · August 07, 2012, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by DarthRuanek

RTW (and later games) did allow the attacker to pick which weather to attack in. That's why the "wait" option is there (symbolizing waiting a day to attack, with new weather). Since each turn represents at the very least a few months, having weather show on the campaign map really wouldn't make sense.

Having orders be lost or confused may be somewhat realistic but it would be really annoying from a gameplay perspective. I don't think it should be added.

I agree.

I think there is a similar system to orders being delayed in SS (not 100%). I have had units in that game delay an order and get charged by spears or something (as cavalry) and I can't pull them out in time. It is not even that it is more realistic, if there was a delay I think it would cut out the common sense of whoever is commanding the unit. I would rather not have orders being lost.

**DarthRuanek** · August 07, 2012, 11:40 PM

Yeah. This is an RTS, where players command armies. If the game decides that you should randomly not be able to command some units properly some of the time, it just wouldn't make sense.

Especially in multiplayer, where it's more about skill.

**Lacedaemon** · August 08, 2012, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by DarthRuanek

Yeah. This is an RTS, where players command armies. If the game decides that you should randomly not be able to command some units properly some of the time, it just wouldn't make sense.

Especially in multiplayer, where it's more about skill.

In a sense, its almost an equivalent to less disciplined troops charging without orders (Which happened alot in RTW1 concerning barbarian and eastern troops), and should help counterbalance player skill to AI skill, as in general to me at least it is fairly easy to win fights in the game. And yes, I realize it is an RTS, but miscarried orders were fairly common then and even today.

**Ichon** · August 08, 2012, 02:14 AM

How is it random if you know its raining and orders will be delayed?

Otherwise it might be interesting to have weather move in as a battle goes on. I remember in MTW2 when rain or snow would start sometimes nearly halfway through a battle or clear out. It made some interest but it would be even better if there were more tactical effects though it gets hard to say how much to try and model. -20% range on bows or something and hopefully a bit less power.

Probably I would prefer trees protect from arrows more than weather effects but particularly with naval and land battles combined the weather at sea should sometimes have an impact.

**Yomamashouse** · August 08, 2012, 02:20 AM

I'm all for realistic portrayal, but I'm gonna be completely honest and say I

HATED

the thick fog that made it impossible to see more than 10 in-game meters ahead. It forced me to lower the camera to ground level and lean my face right into the monitor. I came out of those battles miserable and wanting to throttle the person who programmed it.

I think weather should be important (missile fire accuracy for example), but anything that just makes me want to light myself on fire and jump out a window should be reconsidered.

**DarthRuanek** · August 08, 2012, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ichon

How is it random if you know its raining and orders will be delayed?

Otherwise it might be interesting to have weather move in as a battle goes on. I remember in MTW2 when rain or snow would start sometimes nearly halfway through a battle or clear out. It made some interest but it would be even better if there were more tactical effects though it gets hard to say how much to try and model. -20% range on bows or something and hopefully a bit less power.

Probably I would prefer trees protect from arrows more than weather effects but particularly with naval and land battles combined the weather at sea should sometimes have an impact.

Well, the OP said there would be a chance for orders to not make it or be misheard. That would be random. It also degrades from skill if orders are sometimes not responded to as fast.

**Ichon** · August 08, 2012, 12:54 PM

I wouldn't want fighting uphill to be a huge disadvantage for melee. Some disadvantage and fighting uphill lowers mass so heavy units have trouble pushing light units back and heavy units on the uphill side can push down easier. Missiles on hill have a bit more range as well but that is the extent unless it is a very steep hill but such hill should work against defender as well or just not be present in battleground as no commanders would order an attack up a very steep hill against ready defenders. Maybe on a flank that the defender thought was protected by a very steep hill.