"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.