"Do you use weather as a random modifier in gaming?" Topic

I'm in a balmy 120+ degree (f) weather with 30+ wind gusts in southern Iraq. There are a number of real impacts like movement – ability to move (slow), no aerial assets, dust and lowered visibility (1 mile). Just moving a vehicle increases an unbelievable dust plume.
Also in Winter training last fall (in snow) also showed a decrease in weapon efficiency, movement, and fatigue. Just wearing winter clothing slows movement and reaction time.

Sometimes, but rarely. Weather modifiers just seem to have fallen out of favor with the group. Probably the main factor was an aversion to modified visibility rules that were counter-productive to the goal of painting & playing with miniatures on the table.

Rick

I don't use it as a random modifier most of the time as when I've tried I've found that it is too random, it goes from calm to tornado in three rounds, which *can* happen but happens too often for my tastes. Usually, if the battle had significant weather then I modify for that. If there was the possibility of weather then I set a time when we do start testing for it.

The exception is that there is usually some randomness in my age of sail naval games for weather and wind.

For battles in campaigns yes for stand alone battles not really.

x42

I prefer to have the conditions set in a specific scenario.

But I have used random weather, and wouldn't mind using it again (providing the effects aren't outrageous).
The DBM rules seemed rather good when I used to play that. (If a little weird in their randomness – weather changes were more frequent if you had fewer commands.)

no very much, but I like smoke and fire doing their thing at times.

Use it more in naval games, some in air combat, and little in land games.

We don't probably because it would slow the game too much. But Last night we did discuss this very topic. And decided we might like to try a Russian winter battle.

More so in Medieval & Ancient (up to 1600's) than Moderns or Sci-Fi.

Very rarely unless it is replicating a historic engagement where the weather was influential and highly variable.

Mostly for naval, and occasionally for air.

Only sometimes for ground troops, and fog is the usual event.

Sometimes, when it's pertinent.

I tend to use it in operational games, usually determined on a daily basis. V. important as it affects stuff like the availability of air, artillery observation, non tactical movement etc.

For tactical games it is usually based on the historical weather.

It depends. Sailing rules, yes, as a sudden change in wind direction or strength can be decisive. Most other games, rarely.

Half the time, yeah. Makes scenarios more unique.

Sometimes.

If its a historical game, I'll model the initial conditions as best can be determined, then add appropriate random conditions as desired. It adds a degree of randomness that adds to the chaos of the game.

Sometimes…
Usually for movement or 'to hit' accuracy.

I do only when a scenario calls for it.

I've used it as a scenario event when the weather conditions were used to neutralize certain aspects of one forces capabilities. The weather over the airfields is so severe that you don't get air support.

Psuedo random. Weather should have a logic that you can understand, but not predict. I put such a system in one of my QILS modules.

It does depend on the scenario. Sometimes you choose to fight in crappy weather. Sometimes you choose not to fight in crappy weather. Sometimes crappy is the only weather you can expect.

In harsh weather environs, sometimes there is a differential effect for natives and "visitors".

I'm not a fan. I have to move heaven and earth to get a game in. I'd be disappointed to show up to a game and have it be a muddy slog with very little maneuver and very little visibility.

Now if a scenario was designed to take that into account and still be interesting, then that's different. So no to randomness.

I've never played a campaign that used it, but I'd be up for it in those conditions.

Virtual never. We have complex games the aim being a test of our ability to plan and execute the plan. Our games are already complex, adding a random factor to the simulation adds nothing. It may be realistic but puts the game out of the set of interesting games as the forces could become unbalanced. We do use restricted visibility at times but it needs to be relatively predictable otherwise the game could become uninteresting.

I d veloped a current weather table as an option in the 1981 Guard du Corps Napoleonics system.

No, there are already enough random factors in war gaming. The more random factors you put into a game, the more the outcome of the game comes down to luck as opposed to skill. If I wanted to play a game of luck I could play CandyLand.

I have written in 'sudden thunder storms' into my Boer War rules. Though this would perhaps be silly for games in other parts of the world, a couple of battle of the Boer War featured violent storms which blew up out of no where and have a significant impact on events:

A thunder storm at Elandslaagte greatly helped the Imperial attack. At Willow Grange, two Boers were killed by lightening – a happenstance which the God-fearing General Joubert took as a sign from the Almighty that their invasion of British territory was wrong, and thus called off the push on Durban (it's pity for all concerned that the Almighty didn't intervene before Kruger started the war).

Definitely worth giving thunder storms the off-chance of occurring, I feel.

Yes, it's part of the event deck.