HOI4 Dev Diary - Acclimatization and Special Forces

[_Sohei_]

Well, the human body does adjust to temperature.

Fair enough but it is still primarily about training and equipment, especially after the first two weeks. Climate preparedness should have a much more significant impact than physical acclimatization in the game.

I think a better mechanic would be only a very slight physical acclimatization adjustment (5% stat adjustment or less) to severe weather that disappears automatically after a short time. This should be entirely separate from climate preparedness which should have a very large adjustment and be based entirely on training and equipment.

For example, preparing a unit for a climate could be done with a button for specialized training with a popup selection to choose which climates to better prepare for. Training then proceeds for a time with a temporary organization loss as doing exercises does. During this time equipment is consumed to represent the additional production required for specialized gear upgrades. Then at the end the unit gains a permanent trait similar to leader traits for different climates that reduces the malus for that environment. This shows that they have appropriate equipment now (parkas or shorts or whatever) and the training in how to adjust to an environment. This training should be much faster when conducted in the appropriate climate area.

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

I think it will work fine with a passive adjustent to hot or cold weather. Acclimatization i my mind works as abstract mechanic to simulate training, equiminent and physical acclimatization. Ofcourse one might argue that if it's winter equipment then it should be something that you should produce. But its a game and not a simluator, where as i fine och pleased that everthing isn't 100 percent realistic and if some microing if simplified for the sake of gameplay.

I've bigger issue with that attrition only affect equipment and not manpower.

 

[safe-keeper]

BlackICE had a nice feature where you could make "uniform variants" that gave divisions with these uniforms less severe penalties in for example winter. "There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing", as we Scandies say.

Divisions getting better at fighting in Arctic/Russian winter or deserts is good, but I suppose there could also, or instead, be a "national stat" for how good your troops are at fighting in these conditions, simply because you learn how to handle various challenges in these environments.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Tbh they should get some bonuses, USSR was known for using a lot of Cavalry due to losing a lot of its motorized units during the early months of Barbarossa

In fact, germany's 1. Kavallerie division was considered an elite formation in Terms of training and Performance, often getting Marching distances rivalling those of Panzer divisions Cross country.

I think that cavalry should fill a niche of Cross Country mobile forces with little staying power. But they also should benefit from infantry Buffs, as they still were Part of the regular army.

 

[Walderschmidt]

BlackICE had a nice feature where you could make "uniform variants" that gave divisions with these uniforms less severe penalties in for example winter. "There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing", as we Scandies say.

Divisions getting better at fighting in Arctic/Russian winter or deserts is good, but I suppose there could also, or instead, be a "national stat" for how good your troops are at fighting in these conditions, simply because you learn how to handle various challenges in these environments.

It would be cool if you could develop that, akin to a practical in HOI3.

Wald

 

[Moishe Greenblatt]

This does not make any sense at all. Acclimatization is primarily about training and equipment appropriate for the conditions. It isn't so much about time spent in a particular environment. This entire feature would make more sense as a training and equipment investment to add a climate trait. It should also not be lost from investing in a different climate. Humans do not adjust to hot or cold exclusively to the detriment of the other. That is a myth.

As a former Marine Rifleman I can tell you form personal experience that we use the term "Acclimitization" literally to mean "Spending time exposed to the elements of wherever you will be operating in" and we say you need about 2 weeks minimum of purposeful exposure to the terrain, climate and altitude conditions as they are all inter-related before you can really be considered acclimitized. Training and equipment are very important of course but, honestly that is the smallest part of it. Being acclimitized is about your body being used to the weather and terrain. Even with proper equipment and training on how to use said equipment, your body wont be acclimitized to alien conditions because you have to expose your body to those conditions for this to happen. Its not about your gear. Its mostly about being physically exposed to the environment thus allowing your body to change its internal processes in order to be more adapted to the climate as well as your mental tolerance for the conditions to be built up.

The new acclimitization mechanic looks great. Good job Paradox keep it up!

 

[Moishe Greenblatt]

Well, the human body does adjust to temperature. It's a not a myth. Sportsmen doesn't go to warmer or colder climte 1-2 weeks before a big cup just for the fun of it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070702...rmy.mil/download/heatacclimatizationguide.pdf
Who said that this aclimitasion mechanic isn't about equipment also.?

Thats a good pdf. We basically operated on the same concept in the Marines. It works the same way for cold acclimitization. In fact we would purposefully mandate that we DON'T use all of our special issued winter gear so that we could speed up the acclimitization process by physically being exposed to the cold.

 

[Moishe Greenblatt]

Thats a good pdf. We basically operated on the same concept in the Marines. It works the same way for cold acclimitization. In fact we would purposefully mandate that we DON'T use all of our special issued winter gear so that we could speed up the acclimitization process by physically being exposed to the cold.

Its also why you see Marines who train in the Baltics, Poland and Scandinavia will often do training where they cut open ice and dunk themselves in the water, because acclimitization only happens when as that PDF, common sense and experience points out, the body is actually exposed to the conditions in severe enough amounts and for a long enough time to force your body to adapt. Its not about gear. Gear actually inhibits the acclimitization process. Obviously you need it in the long run to operate effectively but, the process of acclimitzation is specially about the body becoming adapted to the environment.

 

[Denkt]

I like the idea of the special force cap as said it will make them more special and more strategic.

The acclimatization thing is also pretty good but Im not sure how impactful it will actually be. The risk is that nations will simply have most of its army acclimatizated (however I don't know if that will be the case now with slow conscription). I guess winter specialist and its upgrade winter expert is going to be very valuable as well as the adaptable trait if you want to fight well in the winter.

Also you can now get a bonus from both a general and a field marshal, this allow you to get for example better terrain bonuses or less river crossing penalty meaning you may not need as many special forces as before because normal infantry may be better up to the task now.

You should not forget how impactful the command abilities can and may make special forces either much stronger when they are now or less needed:

Makeshift bridges - Gives a substantial reduction to the river crossing penalty.

This mean you wont need marines to do well in river crossing, as long as you (I think) have an engineer commander.

Force Attack - Units gain attack bonuses, take no org damage while attacking, but take increased strength damage. They are also unable to retreat from attacks when this is active. As the active units take damage this will also hurt your nation’s war support.
Last Stand - Similar to Force Attack but when on defense. Use it if you must absolutely hold somewhere no matter what while attacking elsewhere. We also have some national flavor version of these for China and Japan.

Glider Planes - Used in combination with paratroopers they let you drop more paras per transport and give them a boost to organization and defense towards enemy AA.

Last Stand may make paratroopers very strong because they can not be removed while under its effect. Glider Planes simply make them more useful.

 

[JerkyJerry]

That all may very well be true in the real world @Moishe Greenblatt however we are talking about a game. In game how many countries would be sending troops from the desert into a blizzard and vice versa?
Italy? Sure I can envision that. Fighting in North Africa then being sent to Russia to fight. Sure, but how many divisions? Less than 3?
Germany? Sure I can envision that. However again how many divisions are we talking about 3?
China? Japan? Both?
Any other countries? From a Russian winter to North Africa? Slightly possible? America? Naw, too many divisions. England? Not very likely and even then with what? 2 divisions?
Are there any other countries that would be able to pull off such a feet with anything more than a division or two? Not very likely is it?

So while in the real life acclimatization may very well be something that was used by many nations, in game, not so much. I know at first glance this looks real good but once you put it into game context, it quickly becomes a long, very long list of countries this could and will never effect. We are talking about just a very small handful of nations that could ever use this mechanic and once used, for only a very small number of divisions world wide?

Is there acclimatization if I send my 2 Italian troops to the Russian front in April? May? June? July? August? September? Should there be?
Will this only affect troops being sent from the desert to Russia during only 6 months of the year? And vice versa?

Not every DD is going to be the Mother of All Bombs. For me, this DD is a complete dud.

 

[Moishe Greenblatt]

That all may very well be true in the real world @Moishe Greenblatt however we are talking about a game. In game how many countries would be sending troops from the desert into a blizzard and vice versa?
Italy? Sure I can envision that. Fighting in North Africa then being sent to Russia to fight. Sure, but how many divisions? Less than 3?
Germany? Sure I can envision that. However again how many divisions are we talking about 3?
China? Japan? Both?
Any other countries? From a Russian winter to North Africa? Slightly possible? America? Naw, too many divisions. England? Not very likely and even then with what? 2 divisions?
Are there any other countries that would be able to pull off such a feet with anything more than a division or two? Not very likely is it?

So while in the real life acclimatization may very well be something that was used by many nations, in game, not so much. I know at first glance this looks real good but once you put it into game context, it quickly becomes a long, very long list of countries this could and will never effect. We are talking about just a very small handful of nations that could ever use this mechanic and once used, for only a very small number of divisions world wide?

Is there acclimatization if I send my 2 Italian troops to the Russian front in April? May? June? July? August? September? Should there be?
Will this only affect troops being sent from the desert to Russia during only 6 months of the year? And vice versa?

Not every DD is going to be the Mother of All Bombs. For me, this DD is a complete dud.

Acclimitization isn't something that is "used". Its an involuntary internal process of the body. It happens whether you want it to or not. The best way for the game to represent this is for troops to slowly acclimitize over time while being exposed to a new environment and have training and combat in that environment speed up the acclimitization process while giving the division increased attrition when they are not acclimitized. This is exactly what happens in real life so its a double good and luckily for us it seems like this is exactly how Paradox intends to represent this in the game. Perfect realism and perfect for game mechanics, especially since it doesn't require many tedious clicks.

If you play a long enough game then you are very likely to fight in hot and cold, especially as France, UK, USA, Japan, Germany, USSR and Italy. If things don't go perfect for you (this happens often in a good multiplayer game) then you might have to commit additional troops to achieve your goal. These additional troops might have been on a different border preparing to invade somewhere else and you will then suffer an attrition penalty for those troops which were not acclimitized.

For example if you're playing Japan and you took China and are preparing to invade Indies, Malaya, Phillipines, Australia, Raj and New Zealand most of those places have hot temperatures. There are some places in southern China which IIRC also have a hot temperature. So you might train your troops in that hot part of China to acclmitize a massive amount of troops before the fighting begins or, suffer the penalty. Might make the difference between winning and losing if you suffer attrition over many divisions for a long time you might run out of artillery because of it and be pushed out. If your southern expansion invasion plans go awry and you have to take troops which were preparing in Manchukuo (a cold place) to invade the Russian Far East in order to bolster your troops fighting in all of those other hot places which Japan often fights in, then you will suffer an attrition penalty. Similar situations arise for most of the other major powers too.

Fundamentally what is your issue? If your issue is that you don't think it will be "used" that often well then maybe you either aren't playing long enough games as the countries which will fight across many climates, or is your issue that this effect is mostly an automatic, involuntary thing? Or, is it some other fundamental issue?

 

[JerkyJerry]

Fundamentally what is your issue?

I wish I only had one! Oh, your talking about the game?

If your issue is that you don't think it will be "used" that often well then maybe you either aren't playing long enough games as the countries which will fight across many climates, or is your issue that this effect is mostly an automatic, involuntary thing? Or, is it some other fundamental issue?

I'm mostly an Ahistorical player however I have played my share of historical as well. I have over 2k hours playing this version and maybe a little less than that playing HOI3. So I would have to say with nearly 4k hours played in two versions of the series I have played my share of games that went well into the 50's and 60's. (I would not consider myself a novice however I'm sure others have played a lot more than I have.) I can't recall a single solitary time when I transferred troops from a desert to a blizzard or vice versa.

Now exactly what countries are we talking about here? The potential list of countries to use this new mechanism is very very short. Then out of that very very short list of countries that would be inclined to send troops from a Moscow winter to the Sahara Desert, in total how many divisions could we possibly be talking about here?

I play Italy. I've had troops in North Africa. I can't recall a single time when I was sending troops to Romania or Russia etc. when I took any of the very few divisions I had in Africa to Russia. And it has to be exactly at the time it was winter in Russia because if I send them in June, no acclimatization correct?

I've played Russia. Never once have I sent a single Russian soldier to the desert, any desert, for any reason. Do you? Does anyone?

Surely countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania etc. etc. etc. their troops can't be facing any sort of Russian acclimatization can they?

Is a Russian winter any different than an American, German, Canadian etc. etc. winter? It wouldn't make sense would it if my American troops were sent to Moscow in January from Colorado/Alaska/Montana/Idaho/Minnesota etc. etc. etc. and have to face acclimatization?

If I send a division from a country that is in winter to a country that is currently in summer will that division suffer some sort of acclimatization penalty? Or does it have to be 'extreme' temperatures?

I'm thinking about all the games I have played. I can't imagine once where I would have sent more than a division or two from one harsh temperature to another. How many hours do you have into the game? You've actually sent a single division from a desert into a blizzard?

IMHO, much like the Russian AI no longer being allowed to build mechanized units and no one notices (or cares for that matter) the same result will come from acclimatization. For the once every 500 hours someone takes a single division from one extreme temperature to another it will simply just go unnoticed.

Am I slamming Podcat or the team? Heck no. I think putting new things into the game is awesome. One never knows until one tries. I'm not relating any of my comments to the team at all. I'm just asking questions that no one can or has been able to answer yet.

If you don't do it now (like I don't recall ever doing) and there is now going to be a penalty for doing it... Can you explain to me why would I do it in the future? I don't do it now in nearly 4k hours of play. Why would anyone do it if there is going to be a penalty attached to it?

When playing above the equator (which I would imagine is 95% of all battles) how many months are we talking about here?
How many countries don't have winter and would be on the Russian front?
How many countries don't have summer and would be in N. Africa?

German troops are going to suffer acclimatization fighting on the Russian front? Or only if coming from the desert?
Italian troops are going to suffer acclimatization fighting on the Russian front? Or only if coming from the desert?
USA?
England?

I realize China has a desert however it's location makes it nearly 100% negligible. To the point that if any troops are in there could possibly be a mistake There is no need to attack Russia from there if your Japan or China or vice versa. And again, we are talking about a very very limited number of divisions if any aren't we?
Am I missing some other desert?
Other than a Russian winter is there some other winter that there would have to be a concern that troops could potential be bitten by the acclimatization penalty?

Remember I'm talking about the game, only. I appreciate everything you taught me about acclimatization in the real world. And, thank you for your service.
I also did not even touch upon the fact that I'm really not trusting the AI to use this properly, understand this, benefit, be more fun for me, work well with mods, etc.

I suppose I expected more veteran players to be a little more sceptical than they have been. The newbies I understand their excitement, they don't know. That is far from a knock on them. On the surface it sounds really cool until you look under the hood and realize there could possibly be only a very very few countries that ever be in position to have the need to send troops from one temperature extreme to another. And of those very few countries are we not just discussing just a few divisions if more than just a couple ever?

 

[Abadon777]

IMHO, much like the Russian AI no longer being allowed to build mechanized units and no one notices (or cares for that matter) the same result will come from acclimatization. For the once every 500 hours someone takes a single division from one extreme temperature to another it will simply go unnoticed.

Although we have not been given a A.I. diary yet, I hope they fix this. I do remember that in the last broadcast that the A.I. can now do paratrooper drops under limited conditions.

 

[Sourlol]

@JerkyJerry

What if this acclimatization system helps remove strategic shuffling from the AI? Troops who are acclimatized to Africa will have little incentive to huff it into Russia and vice versa.

It give the AI potentially an additional modifier by which to limit the theater scale redeployment of troops.

Germany starts with most of their forces in Central Europe in January--not exactly the Med. They should be relatively dis swayed from moving into the Suez and Nile preferring to stay in bordering regions up north where it is cold.

Italy may be more apprehensive to abandon her coasts and property on the Med to go fight in Ukraine.

From a players standpoint, it makes ferrying all of your troops to your capital on 1/1/36 make a little less sense--as it should. UK nor France would just up and recall every division they had abroad to London/Paris just to make reorganization easier.

From a players standpoint, it makes reinforcing a theater less impactful in the immediate. (I hear enough about people bitching about how the USA is OP once they get into the war). Fresh Americans show up in Casablanca during July? well theyve been sailing for a month and it wasnt nearly this hot when they left NYC in late May

I dunno, I see acclimatization as a small passive modifier, it can offer temporary exposure to one side and a potential for exploitation by the other...until the troops

 

[Wraith11B]

In my current HoI3 game running the Axis, it is February 1943, and Russia declared war against Germany in early January. I had Italy land a significant force of nearly three corps (so far) in Crimea, most fresh from fighting in East Africa and the Middle East. Now, if this mechanic had been present in that game, I would likely have not immediately forced such a landing, given that it is February and my guys were fighting (really just moving) in hot, desert regions. I probably would have waited and let Germany bear the brunt of the nearly 1000-brigade strong Red Army rather than open up a new front so soon.

Can I turn it around a bit and ask why you're only moving a division around, maybe two? I've never committed so few troops to any one location, so it's slightly odd to see someone mention only sending a division or two someplace.

 

[JerkyJerry]

@JerkyJerry

What if this acclimatization system helps remove strategic shuffling from the AI? Troops who are acclimatized to Africa will have little incentive to huff it into Russia and vice versa.

It give the AI potentially an additional modifier by which to limit the theater scale redeployment of troops.

Germany starts with most of their forces in Central Europe in January--not exactly the Med. They should be relatively dis swayed from moving into the Suez and Nile preferring to stay in bordering regions up north where it is cold.

Italy may be more apprehensive to abandon her coasts and property on the Med to go fight in Ukraine.

From a players standpoint, it makes ferrying all of your troops to your capital on 1/1/36 make a little less sense--as it should. UK nor France would just up and recall every division they had abroad to London/Paris just to make reorganization easier.

From a players standpoint, it makes reinforcing a theater less impactful in the immediate. (I hear enough about people bitching about how the USA is OP once they get into the war). Fresh Americans show up in Casablanca during July? well theyve been sailing for a month and it wasnt nearly this hot when they left NYC in late May

I dunno, I see acclimatization as a small passive modifier, it can offer temporary exposure to one side and a potential for exploitation by the other...until the troops

Hi Sourlol!
It was not mentioned that acclimatization would do anything, positive or negative with regards to strategic shuffling.

And for those of use that don't use sprites how would we know if acclimated? If I used sprites I would see the uniforms change colors, how about those of us that use the less lag causing symbols?

In your German example. What if it is June in Germany and they are sent to the Suez or Nile. Is there acclimatization then? July? August?

In your American example. My troops did not leave NYC, they left from Florida. The difference between Florida and Casablanca is? And my troops did not sail, they flew.

 

[Wraith11B]

The difference between Florida and Casablanca is that one is a sub-tropical humid location that can get meh-hot, and the other is a desert that gets ridiculous-hot. Put it this way, I went with the Army to Baghdad-via Kuwait-and my unit was from Louisiana. You basically argue that there is no difference between the two, yet there is a massive difference. Temperature and weather is significant and short of being in the location to deal with it, you don't quite understand what really should go on.

 

[Sourlol]

Hi Sourlol!
It was not mentioned that acclimatization would do anything, positive or negative with regards to strategic shuffling.

And for those of use that don't use sprites how would we know if acclimated? If I used sprites I would see the uniforms change colors, how about those of us that use the less lag causing symbols?

I believe the Devs showed there was an icon that would show on the unit tooltip (lack of a better term) in the upper left of the screen when they are selected. I believe it was to the immediate right of the Org and Str bars.

You're right in that the devs have not specifically said how the AI will react to this new system. But they havent said how the AI will react to ANY new system. Unless you are operating on the assumption the AI will ignore the OOB system, ignore general progression, ignore stability and war support, ignore the new NF trees, ignore border war, ignore decisive actions....then it would be safe to assume the AI will have the ability to react to this acclimatization system.

Specifically in regard to strategic shuffling--thats just the only case I could come up with where the AI would take acclimatization in active consideration.

I think we can all agree acclimatization will quickly become background noise to most of us. We won't consider it outside of edge cases, but it will affect our performance.

I'm all about more mechanics that lead to more accurate modeling of the war. But I will say, i am a bit leary of something like acclimatization or Infra affecting construction speed. Both are largely passive (as has been discussed elsewhere, building up infra before factories is almost never a good idea in-terms of min/maxing) and the player wont consistently consider it beyond "Oh its cold here" and "I guess ill build this CIC on the 9/10 as opposed to the 6/10".

I want active things to do. Model the war, balance the game. But make me an active participant in the solution. This is I guess why my solution would be a mix of time in theater as it is going to be and niche gear to be produced and supplied (a la Black Ice)--further stressing my logistics as I fight in inhospitable environments.

 

[Moishe Greenblatt]

I wish I only had one! Oh, your talking about the game?



I'm mostly an Ahistorical player however I have played my share of historical as well. I have over 2k hours playing this version and maybe a little less than that playing HOI3. So I would have to say with nearly 4k hours played in two versions of the series I have played my share of games that went well into the 50's and 60's. (I would not consider myself a novice however I'm sure others have played a lot more than I have.) I can't recall a single solitary time when I transferred troops from a desert to a blizzard or vice versa.

Now exactly what countries are we talking about here? The potential list of countries to use this new mechanism is very very short. Then out of that very very short list of countries that would be inclined to send troops from a Moscow winter to the Sahara Desert, in total how many divisions could we possibly be talking about here?

I play Italy. I've had troops in North Africa. I can't recall a single time when I was sending troops to Romania or Russia etc. when I took any of the very few divisions I had in Africa to Russia. And it has to be exactly at the time it was winter in Russia because if I send them in June, no acclimatization correct?

I've played Russia. Never once have I sent a single Russian soldier to the desert, any desert, for any reason. Do you? Does anyone?

Surely countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania etc. etc. etc. their troops can't be facing any sort of Russian acclimatization can they?

Is a Russian winter any different than an American, German, Canadian etc. etc. winter? It wouldn't make sense would it if my American troops were sent to Moscow in January from Colorado/Alaska/Montana/Idaho/Minnesota etc. etc. etc. and have to face acclimatization?

If I send a division from a country that is in winter to a country that is currently in summer will that division suffer some sort of acclimatization penalty? Or does it have to be 'extreme' temperatures?

I'm thinking about all the games I have played. I can't imagine once where I would have sent more than a division or two from one harsh temperature to another. How many hours do you have into the game? You've actually sent a single division from a desert into a blizzard?

IMHO, much like the Russian AI no longer being allowed to build mechanized units and no one notices (or cares for that matter) the same result will come from acclimatization. For the once every 500 hours someone takes a single division from one extreme temperature to another it will simply just go unnoticed.

Am I slamming Podcat or the team? Heck no. I think putting new things into the game is awesome. One never knows until one tries. I'm not relating any of my comments to the team at all. I'm just asking questions that no one can or has been able to answer yet.

If you don't do it now (like I don't recall ever doing) and there is now going to be a penalty for doing it... Can you explain to me why would I do it in the future? I don't do it now in nearly 4k hours of play. Why would anyone do it if there is going to be a penalty attached to it?

When playing above the equator (which I would imagine is 95% of all battles) how many months are we talking about here?
How many countries don't have winter and would be on the Russian front?
How many countries don't have summer and would be in N. Africa?

German troops are going to suffer acclimatization fighting on the Russian front? Or only if coming from the desert?
Italian troops are going to suffer acclimatization fighting on the Russian front? Or only if coming from the desert?
USA?
England?

I realize China has a desert however it's location makes it nearly 100% negligible. To the point that if any troops are in there could possibly be a mistake There is no need to attack Russia from there if your Japan or China or vice versa. And again, we are talking about a very very limited number of divisions if any aren't we?
Am I missing some other desert?
Other than a Russian winter is there some other winter that there would have to be a concern that troops could potential be bitten by the acclimatization penalty?

Remember I'm talking about the game, only. I appreciate everything you taught me about acclimatization in the real world. And, thank you for your service.
I also did not even touch upon the fact that I'm really not trusting the AI to use this properly, understand this, benefit, be more fun for me, work well with mods, etc.

I suppose I expected more veteran players to be a little more sceptical than they have been. The newbies I understand their excitement, they don't know. That is far from a knock on them. On the surface it sounds really cool until you look under the hood and realize there could possibly be only a very very few countries that ever be in position to have the need to send troops from one temperature extreme to another. And of those very few countries are we not just discussing just a few divisions if more than just a couple ever?

Ok so you are either just THAT good that you always commit the exact amount of troops and nothing bad ever happens where you have to move around divisions or, you're the noob here who only plays VS the ai and you don't have the experience of multiplayer games to give you the ability to appreciate how impactful a hot/cold acclimitization attrition mechanic would be in real big multiplayer games. Entire invasions will likely be delayed or rushed in order to accommodate the acclimitization of the troops to the environment where they will be fighting in. This is MASSIVE and will add a whole new fun and engaging dynamic to the game in general and especially in multiplayer.

There are so many situations where all the major factions will likely have to fight in hot and cold and move divisions between the two temperatures in the same game, even the USSR. You know there is the massive desert in central Asia that the USSR controls right? What if Japan invades your far east and slowly pushes across. If you decide to defend your valuable resources and everything else east of the Urals then you will likely have to fight across this desert. What if you decide to invade Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan through your focuses? Your troops will surely fight in the heat then. If you're Italy and you either get pushed out of Africa or you conquer it, those troops will be acclimitized to the heat and then oh look Comintern declares war on the Axis and D-Day hasn't happened and Germany is getting pushed so you need to help your ally and send your additional troops to bolster the Eastern Front. Now your troops are fighting in the cold and suffering additional attrition.

Ok so you've never played against my Japan where I invade Russia far east with 111 9/2 infantry divisions with support anti tank and fully supplied with level 3 infrastructure as I creep across Siberia to sandwich you on the Germans approaching from your West. Believe me it can happen and I do it often in multiplayer.

Again, either you're THAT good or, you don't have the real multiplayer experience to understand the gravity that a hot/cold game mechanic could have on the game.

 

[JerkyJerry]

The difference between Florida and Casablanca is that one is a sub-tropical humid location that can get meh-hot, and the other is a desert that gets ridiculous-hot. Put it this way, I went with the Army to Baghdad-via Kuwait-and my unit was from Louisiana. You basically argue that there is no difference between the two, yet there is a massive difference. Temperature and weather is significant and short of being in the location to deal with it, you don't quite understand what really should go on.

According to a weather website it is actually hotter in Miami than Casablanca. Now I don't know about the years during WWII however according to this web site in 2017 Miami was hotter.
This same website stated that as you mentioned Baghdad is some 20 degrees hotter than Miami.
Part of my point is that I really don't think a New York or Miami is going to matter. I don't think it is going to be that specific. I think Nome and Miami are going to be the same temperature as far as the mechanics are concerned. Which is blah IMHO.