"Wargames Without Weather?" Topic

We talk a lot about friction in wargames—but largely ignore one of the biggest sources of it: weather. Why?

Weather clearly mattered in real campaigns—mud, heat, rain, fog all shaped movement, combat effectiveness and even command decisions.

On the tabletop, though, it's often reduced to an occasional event card or ignored entirely. Even when included, it tends to be abstract (e.g. a "thirst" or "mud" penalty rather than something persistent and evolving).

I've seen it used to good effect in a Sudan game we had where heat impacted combat performance—but that's the exception rather than the rule for us.

So I'm curious:

Do you use weather rules regularly?
Should weather be a constant factor or just random friction?
Does it add realism—or just slow the game down?
Are there any rulesets that get the balance right?

Interested to hear how (or if) others bring weather onto the table.

We don't use weather because:
1: It's just another die roll modifier!
2: It slows down the game, and we only have a short time to play! We like a game to be concluded in that short time!
3: Weather is "messy"! By this I mean, do you have historical weather (a battle in the rain), or do you randomize it (more dice rolls, slows down game)!
cheers!

Weather largely just slows things down. It is hard enough to finish a game already.

I have played plenty of games with limited visibility though (rain, mist) and differentiated terrain effects. Mud tends to affect wheeled vehicles more. Snow also has variable impact, particularly in WW2 Russia. So I have Soviet ski troops flying over the snow, while the Panzerwaffe blunder around.

The biggest impact of weather in higher level games is on mobility, logistics, artillery observation and air operations.

It is key to sail age warfare of course.

Unless it is a particular feature, I don't use it. It tends to affect both sides equally (exceptions are exactly that) and, as mentioned above, essentially slows things down.

Usually covered in the scenario or set up. About 10% of the time it impacts play in some fashion (limited ammo in rain during pike and shot, need for water due to heat, slow movement due to conditions, river low or swollen impacting a crossing etc…)

For an historical battle where weather was a real factor, then yes. Towton without snow? And a strong wind aiding one set of archers and really hampering the other side? Are you kidding me man?

This seems like it should have been a poll suggestion.

Generally, I use weather rules if they're a standard part of the rules we're using. Which happens to a lot of the time, but that's something of an accident. I do like weather rules that introduce an element of uncertainty and variety, but it's not something I pay a huge amount of attention to when considering whether to use a rulesset.

20th Maine, you indirectly raise an interesting point – should a wargame scenario's weather match the historical conditions, or should it be variable (within plausible bounds)? In any wargame refight of Towton, if the historical conditions are used the Lancastrians aren't going to spend any time in an archery duel but instead will go straightforward to melee. I suggest that wargame weather, if used at all, should be something that a player has to _react_ to, rather than something they _plan_ to.

Weather should be part of the game scenario. Hattin wouldn't be the same without heat and water penalties for the Crusaders. The hard part is balancing the penalty so that one side is not excessively impacted.

+1 to what d88mm1940 said! Cheers!

I'm generally in the "fine weather for a battle" column, unless I'm replicating a specific historical fight as noted. Generally for d88mm1940's reasons, but let me add that reduced visibility rules--fog and night--boil down to fighting a miniatures battle with hardly any of the miniatures on the table--not my recipe for a satisfying afternoon.

I will invoke cloud cover during parts of WW2 so my land battle isn't reduced to calling in the P-47's, though.

Yes…but then I generally go the historical route for games.

I don't use weather in games other than replicating nighttime.

I have had the occasional very dim lit game signifying moon lit landscape using a very low lumens bulb positioned high and away from the game table.

One time long ago we had a foggy (dry ice) D&D game. I have to do that again…

I enjoy the NUTS WW2 skirmish rules because it has optional rules you can plug in that effect your games, including weather. Weather can effect visibility, movement, AND troop status (Called REP, or Reputation – ranges from (2) a kid or elderly or infirm to (6) an elite soldier). Extreme weather can cause another optional rule to kick in called "Privation," which can add a negative modifier to figure performance, in addition to Supply rules.

For example, in the book NUTS Stalingrad, you can play both sides and as the German player you would be part of a Veteran Rep 5 Panzergrenadier unit with 16th Panzer since about 1/4 of that unit escaped the Kessel before the Soviets completed their encirclement during Operation Uranus.

By the time the player reaches the Kessel portion of NUTS! Stalingrad: Heroes All, the German force is no longer the fresh, aggressive Panzergrenadier unit that drove across the Don in July. These men have fought continuously through Fall Blau, the brutal street fighting of the Rattenkrieg, and now the chaos of Operation Uranus. The book describes the 16th Panzer Division as "battered from months of fighting" and pulled from what little refit and resupply remained before being thrown west to face the Soviet breakthrough.

To represent this in play, the German player begins the breakout scenarios using the unit's normal listed REP, but that REP is then reduced by the cumulative effects of Exhaustion, Privation, and Winter combat conditions.

A veteran Panzergrenadier squad that normally fights at REP 5 is first reduced by –1 REP for months of continuous combat, lack of replacements, poor sleep, and accumulated casualties.

It then suffers an additional –1 REP for the freezing conditions, inadequate food, ammunition shortages, fuel shortages, and the psychological shock of encirclement described in the Kessel campaign.

The squad still consists of veteran soldiers, but they no longer perform like fresh veterans. A REP 5 squad therefore fights on the table as REP 3, representing men who are cold, hungry, sleep-deprived, physically worn down, and increasingly aware that the army around them is collapsing.

In game terms, this lower functional REP affects nearly everything the unit does. Movement through snow, rubble, or under fire becomes less reliable. Rally attempts are harder. Troops are more likely to seek cover, duck back, or hesitate when fired upon. Vehicle crews may struggle with frozen engines, low fuel, or mechanical breakdowns. Support weapons may fire less often as ammunition is rationed. Casualties become harder to replace, and wounded men are increasingly left behind rather than returned to the line. The soldiers still possess their training, discipline, and combat experience, but the brutal reality of Stalingrad has stripped away much of their physical endurance and operational flexibility. On paper they remain elite Panzergrenadiers—on the battlefield of November 1942, they fight like exhausted men simply trying to survive long enough to escape the cauldron.

Now, it's not all hopeless – in the game you may also be able to reverse some of these conditions; like capturing Supplies may reduce Privation, etc. In a campaign of your Unit can get Rest, it can also reduce effects. For example, in one scenario in the Stalingrad book your squad needs to capture -- a cauldon of soup. Get the soup, reduce the debuff of Privation.

And that's where NUTS shines, as a tactical skirmish game with great mechanics, but that also means into the narrative style of play you can do at that level.

Weather is a given for naval games particularly age of sail games. It would be like not having terrain for land based games.

Just as I was about to pierce the French line in a Trafalgar type game, the wind shifted, and I was taken aback. Being dead in the water, the French fleet cheerfully crossed my T and called me a naughty boy.

I might add that it was my turn to roll for the wind.

So, yeah. I LOVE weather rules. 🙄

Unless it is something scenario specific, I prefer to leave it out.

Huron 725 – "I have had the occasional very dim lit game signifying moon lit landscape using a very low lumens bulb positioned high and away from the game table."

I think this is a great idea.

I like weather involved in battles. I'll be adding a rainstorm to my Battle of Puebla (1862) in tomorrow's game.
the players will no longer be able to shoot, but can continue the battle as purely a melee environment. I'm pretty sure they will call the game at that point, like the real armies did.

E

If I may add to my first post:
4. We do use wind direction changes in WS&IM (sailing ships), but do not change weather conditions (always fair weather)!

Comment: I played a N. Africa battle once in L.A. on a huge table! The host had a painted light bulb for night movement (2 or 3 turns, I think)! Every couple of minutes you would hear "crunch", "oops"! Then, 5 minutes later "crunch", "oops"!
Good old plastic ROCO and Airfix tanks!
I don't recall ever having a night game there…

+1 79th

Weather and darkness affect visibility and movement. Technology eventually overcomes both in both contexts. So for games set in those contexts, weather and day/night are just flavor, but don't have a game effect.

Southbay +1 on Nuts!
I play a lot of Winter War; hard to do without weather.
Sometimes I do have to make concessions to playability. For example troops in woods have a movement penalty, as do those in snow. So troops in deep snow in woods, barely move.

Part of the genius of DBM was weather being hard-wired into the game set-up dice and not described as optional.

In most games nothing happened; but you could occasionally get rain, snow, dust-storm, strong winds, mist and so on, each keyed to the nominal season and geography of the battle.

Weather and time of day (also hard-wired) could generate an interesting story for your battle and provide tactical problems to solve. And fun.

No extra dice needed as players'command dice drove the weather stopping or changing.

(Almost all games I now play do not include weather, time of day or anything beyond a simplistic treatment of terrain).

DB

One interesting point emerging here is whether weather should be something players plan around or something they must react to.

If the weather is historical and known in advance (Towton, Hattin, Winter War etc.), players can build their plans around it.

But if weather changes unpredictably during the game, it becomes a source of friction and uncertainty instead.

Those are actually two very different design philosophies.

The DBM comments are interesting in this regard—weather was built into the system and occasionally created tactical problems without dominating the game.

So perhaps the real issue isn't whether weather should exist in wargames, but how intrusive it should be:
background atmosphere,
scenario-defining condition,
or dynamic gameplay mechanic?

To add more context for Age of Sail games, most systems tend to have weather changes occur rarely or infrequently. So, rolling an 11 or 12 on 2d6 for example. Some have the wind direction change more frequently than the wind strength, so you don't start on a calm day and end up with a storm.

I'm generally opposed to random weather changes in naval games. You're just inviting Lady Luck to run your game, and she has no respect for history, game balance, or suspension of disbelief. If you provide her even the smallest aperture to introduce disruption, she'll jam in a crowbar and widen the hole enough to send through a hurricane.

Before steam power, a big change of wind strength or sea state was generally a battle-ending event, so there's really no good reason to simulate it anyway.

I don't mind predictable or expected changes of weather that have a tactical effect, as long as players can understand them and plan for them. That can be a really fun way to add extra texture to a scenario.

We talk a lot about friction in wargames—but largely ignore one of the biggest sources of it: weather. Why?

I've never ignored weather, I've been using it in scenario games for as long as I can remember. The trick is to avoid random weather events and instead include a predictable change with somewhat unpredictable timing, or as a way to even out the odds for the underdog. For instance:

I ran the Battle of Falkirk Muir 1746 three times in the last half year, and the start of the rainfall that day completely changed the outcome of the battle, so I had to include it. I decided the most realistic way to do this was to give at least 3 turns of clear weather, then start a small-but-growing chance of rain starting thereafter. This way, both sides knew it was coming, but couldn't count on it hurting or helping. I allowed units to fire at half strength in the rain, which is rather generous compared to real life, and sounds "not too bad" – until you try it a few times, and discover that shooting has become almost pointless. The ultimate effect was to put a timer on the redcoats' chance of victory.

I've often used limited visibility in naval games to get the forces closer together, even the odds against a force with numerical superiority, and enable sneaky tactics like torpedo boats appearing out of the mist or a minelayer laying mines in a very inconvenient place before anyone could spot it.

- Ix

Also, as pointed out many times above, but not quite explicitly: weather that affects both sides equally isn't really a game changer as much as scenario flavor. Interesting scenarios are always a good thing.

Surely the important question is can the weather impact the outcome. If not including it as a factor is just pointless detail. If it can have an impact work out how and include the impact, not the detail. As an example Towton in the War of the Roses, visibility is limited to X" and Lancastrian bow range is less than Yorkist.

If you look at history most large battles are not fought in situations where weather will have an effect because almost inevitably one side doesn't want to. Why Towton was fought on thatr day I [and Google] don't know.

We can model weather effects but very rarely do, and yes it can affect the outcome significantly. We do not usually cover it, as its one more parameter to cover in an infinite number of paramaters.

We need to cover the ones we are "interested" in. Many folk for instance do not consider the tonnage rating of bridges, Critical in many battles at leass from WW1. Why because it makes it simple, not because it has no effect. It can shape the nature of a choke point if its the only bridge that can take armour across.

As we fight simulations with certain objectives and strategies we want to explore weather is mostly just an impediment and uneccessary complication. If we want to explore the limitations of weather then we will add it but that is rarely the case.