Blizzards don't add strategic depth

I'm not as critical about the system as some people are, anyone complaining about how blizzards "ruin" the game and need to be completely removed just haven't learned how to play yet. Aside from not being able to build fires during blizzards, my problem with them that literally nobody seems to discuss is the fact blizzards don't add any sort of thought process. Right now it is nothing but a micro tax, making sure to keep your guys warm enough so you don't need to retreat.

Off map support is disabled, but all infantry units seem to have the same effects except for the sniper having cold immunity and a slightly higher sight range. It makes MGs less effective because often you won't see attacks coming in time to reposition. Other than nerfing directional units, it makes almost no impact on the actual engagement and doesn't really reward attacking (like some people claim it does) unless you happen to accidentally walk around a MG. Moving your guys to a fire does not add a decision making process, just a few extra clicks that become second nature after about 50 games.

Here are a few ways to actually add depth:
-Change the way certain squads react to blizzards. So much could be done to give different units various different sight ranges, heat retention, weapon cooldown rates, and accuracy modifiers during blizzards to make it much more interesting than a simple global decrease in visibility.
-Add fuel, munition, and doctrine based upgrades that negate the side effects of cold weather. Ex- conscripts gain full sight with a certain doctrine ability, Grenadiers have their accuracy penalty negated by a individual warmer clothing upgrade, pioneers can construct a larger fire for some fuel, and this fire provides significant boosts in sight range and heat retention.
-Some units efficiency is related to their warmth level, rather than upgrades. Ex- Penal battalions fire rate gets increasingly slower as thermometer decreases, and PGrens moving accuracy starts to decrease, etc.

There are millions of possible combinations for cold unit modifiers, and methods for reducing the penalties. This would be a lot more dynamic than just a sight decrease, it would be really satisfying to exploit certain unit compositions by knowing what their weaknesses are in a certain situation.

I personally think Relic has not exploited Coldtech to its true potential. Blizzards themselves are not my issue, deep snow is.

I was under the idea(during previews) that tanks passing over deep snow would compact that snow, and allow for troops to pass unimpeded,until a Blizzard rolled in and reset that snow once more. Right now, as far as I know, it only deletes tracks and footprints and freezes ice.

Deep snow had a lot of potential. For example:

-Mines planted in deep snow are harder to detect (closer proximity). You'd see the footprints there, but if a Blizzard rolled in, you'd be clueless and would have to risk it or run a minesweeper.

-Hiding particular units in snow such as snipers, PG's (with jaeger ambush upgrade?) and Guards. Pros: First Strike bonus, relative invisibility (can be detected just not at normal range). Cons: Freeze faster and reduced line of sight.

-If snow could be compacted, you could spray the map with more deep snow, tactics could promote driving a vehicle first to create a path (risking a nasty AT shot).

some of this stuff is hard to implement: dynamic pathways could mess up pathfinding and stuff, but its those elaborate mechanics that create deep strategic value.

the suggestions you made are pretty good ideas. however, blizzards do add some strategic depths. during world war II or any other wars many operations had to be cancelled due to weather, so in coh2 i would like to see what players would do in harsh climates like would they take advantage of it, or would they just sit down and wait for it to pass? is it a good idea to take the risk to attack during a snowstorm? that kind of thought process would go through a players mind because of how blizzards can discourage players because of how it effects their proficiency.

I find myself in complete agreement with Basilone. Having Commanders that allow you to ameliorate the effects of weather is an excellent idea. Being able to buy, for example, enhanced cold weather gear, or call in Siberian troops or German mountain troops with good all-weather performance adds depth.

Plus, in automatching you would need to consider cold-weather loadout / contingency.

Want to create a high risk scenario during blizzards?

Increase the capping speed of all infantry units, during blizzards alone.

Your tracks have been erased, your positions concealed, the ice has frozen. If you advance successfully, you gain territorial control, risking being ambushed or freeze in the process.

The game is giving you two very distinct choices, for two very different outcomes. Hell, this would also help shorten games. If you already sent your enemy back to base during a blizzard, you can take even more parts of the map, before upkeep comes back around and kicks you in the arse.

All good ideas in the original post. Alas, I have a sneaking suspicion any changes/additions to game mechanics won't happen anytime soon and we'll be stuck with the current blizzard system for quite some time. We'll probably have to wait for an expansion DLC, which will cost who knows how much. The most we can expect would be graphical, performance and balance improvements. But I'd love Relic to prove me wrong.

Blizzards do not add strategic depth but rather minimize strategy.

If blizzards occurred at set times throughout a map then they would add strategic depth. Something you cannot plan for does not add strategic depth.

What the blizzards do is shift some emphasis from the strategic component to the tactical component. Like the OP stated, they add more micro that has to be performed. Sacrificing strategical decisions for tactical ones isn't a good thing in an RTS. It removes depth.

@ Jinseul you contradicted yourself in your post. You stated that the blizzards add more strategy but then state how random effects, such as weather, disable strategy. A player's reactions to random occurrences are tactical decisions not strategic ones.

Cold tech by its current setup is killing the fast paced gameplay of vcoh we all loved.

Blizzards should improve tactical gameplay, not reduce it. One way would be to change the consistence of deep snow. Deep snow should act like water, that units move slower and are in red cover, just with the difference, that deep snow can be removed by vehicles or explosions. Blizzards will renew these obstacles.
Either the deep snow is at fixed positions from the start or not there in the first place. Every Blizzard storm could then randomly spread deep snow on the map.

Freezing should be limited to edit combat modifiers for your infantry: The more they are freezing the bigger the negative modifiers become (slower walking, less accuracy of their weapons, easier to hit, ect.). So instead of freezing to death crap, the infantry becomes less effective in combat. This is way better than your units getting instantly removed from combat because you need to retreat them or they die.

If Relic insists, dying from cold could be limited to the Blizzard duration, but Blizzards should not lock the gameplay.

There is also the possibility, that during Blizzards mines are not working or are delayed, because of the snow falling on them (not realistic i know, but its improving the gameplay).

EDIT:
I know people say that during Blizzard you can attack using your HT´s. The poor visibility because of the blizzard and the ugly UI make that strategy hard to play and not fun to defend.

Other than nerfing directional units, it makes almost no impact on the actual engagement and doesn't really reward attacking (like some people claim it does) unless you happen to accidentally walk around a MG.

This is not true. It allows infantry to close on vehicles that are unsupported by inf. It allows mines to be placed on the front lines with enemy units nearby. It allows you to cap points that were previously in the LoS of the enemy. It makes T34 attacks on the longer-range german tanks more effective. Artillery spread is increased in blizzards, as are cooldowns, so attacking an enemy that has artillery with a large infantry force is more viable during a blizzard.

Moving your guys to a fire does not add a decision making process, just a few extra clicks that become second nature after about 50 games.

It does add decision making. You can choose to go for the fire and get warm, or you can rush to a building that may or may not be occupied. You can skip the fire and go straight for the point you want to cap in the hopes that you'll be able to stay in cover and not be forced to move. It costs time to go to a fire and get warm, which is an important resource in RTS games. If you have a half frozen unit, it adds a decision: do I go and warm this squad up when it could be more useful somewhere else? How long has it been since the last blizzard? Those all sound like decisions to me.

Don't have an issue with any of the suggestions, but given the above I can't see how you can make the argument that it doesn't add depth.

I always wanted two main things.

1. Russian Ski Troops and German Mountain infantry could both be a similar call in unit that works well in winter (resistance to attrition) and very fast / agile units. IRL these units had high strategic value during the winter offensives. In game this could translate to a valuable fighting force during blizzard/ winter maps.
I suppose spring and summer maps could utilize them also, perhaps as a recon unit?

2. Tech upgrades for both sides, like winter clothing, cabin heaters, extra ration packs ect. They could have useful effects to help prevent winter attrition whilst in the summer perhaps swapped out for opposites such as light summer clothing, cabin coolers and hydration packs (rather than affect attrition these could increase capping speed, enable sprint ability ect)?

just some idea i'm sure we all have our own wish's for the game

Freezing should be limited to edit combat modifiers for your infantry: The more they are freezing the bigger the negative modifiers become (slower walking, less accuracy of their weapons, easier to hit, ect.). So instead of freezing to death crap, the infantry becomes less effective in combat. This is way better than your units getting instantly removed from combat because you need to retreat them or they die.

This is nice. Blizzards and cold shouldn't be killing your troops and punishing the player. The player should be focusing on fighting, while keeping environmental variables in mind, e.g.: Temperature would become the equivalent to cover, but offensively. The warmer you are, the better you perform. The colder you are, the weaker you dish out damage.

The warmer you are, the better you perform. The colder you are, the weaker you dish out damage.

Cold units move slower as far as I know. I dont know if there are any combat modifiers.

Overall, I find the author answers his own questions. Cold Tech does what it should.
-Forces strategic change innanticipation of and during blizzards.
-Forces tactical change during blizzards.

Cold techs current:
-Visibility decrease
-Disabling of air support
-increased elements of infantry micro for warmth
are adequate and greatly incease the strategic and tactical dynamics of the game.

The suggestions made here are nice and "realistic", but only serve to unneccessarily complicate the game for very specific niche uses. The simpler and more general the effectsmof cold tech, the better and more balanced it is.

I do think fires should be buidable in blizzards. Conscripts at least can build sandbags for cover.
I like the ski-unit suggestion, but infantry mobility needs to stay limited, especially with Oorahs existance.
Furthermore, clown car and HTs interlink with cold tech in a good way, so mobility and heat is already covered.
I disagree with infantry upgrades that prevent cold. Existing methods are adequate, and the Snipers are designed to withstand cold.

Perhaps Veterancy could provide a small cold resistance bonus.

Having certain units, doctrines or upgrades do better in snow or blizzards would result in them being less useful in summer for their cost, wouldn't it?

You have to plan how to place fires - offensive or defensive?
Support your mortars with fires, and predict where will be fight going when blizzard suddenly hits.
You can use reduced visavility as an advantage and move your forces behind enemy lines.
You can destroy enemy fires during a blizzrd to force him retreat from a point.
These are all strategy and tactics, and it is not so much micro to press "Build Fire" button 4-5 times per game, for oak sake.

Love blizzard system, well done, Relic!

There is modifiers for infantry that are freezing. These modifiers will gradually get worse as the freezing proceeds until the unit reaches the point where it dies.

There is modifiers for infantry that are freezing. These modifiers will gradually get worse as the freezing proceeds until the unit reaches the point where it dies.

The problem is, those modifiers really don't play that much of a role, because you'll either be retreating to base, or dying. Cover helps slow this down, but unless you are inside a building, cover plays less of a role this time around.

You never really get to fight with freezing men.

The problem is, those modifiers really don't play that much of a role, because you'll either be retreating to base, or dying. Cover helps slow this down, but unless you are inside a building, cover plays less of a role this time around.

You never really get to fight with freezing men.

You have to keep infantry warm either in cover, near a fire, in a building or a vehicle or you will suffer attrition as well as reduced speed and warmth.

Deliberate destruction of fireplaces is a tactical option, to deny the enemy warmth.
As is, as some brilliant thinker has realised, deliberate targetting of enemy fireplace locations durin blizzards with indirect fire, both to destroy the fireplace, and to hit infantry that is quite possibly huddled next to it.

Four caveats though:
1) Vehicles should auto path around fires, unless deliberately targetted or shift-qued to pass through it. Its stupid that the autodriver damages his own vehicle...
2) Veterancy should slightly, incrementally, increase cold resistance.
3) I agree, and feel, that the detrimental effects of cold to speed and combat modifiers, should be fairly significantly imcreased, in order to force a) serious tactical planning of infantey warmth for blizzards b) make warmth a priority .
4) Buildings are FAR too resistant to destruction. "Scorched Earth " style deliberate destruction and denial of enemy hard cold counters needs to be a plausible strategy.

You have to keep infantry warm either in cover, near a fire, in a building or a vehicle or you will suffer attrition as well as reduced speed and warmth.

Deliberate destruction of fireplaces is a tactical option, to deny the enemy warmth.
As is, as some brilliant thinker has realised, deliberate targetting of enemy fireplace locations durin blizzards with indirect fire, both to destroy the fireplace, and to hit infantry that is quite possibly huddled next to it.

Four caveats though:
1) Vehicles should auto path around fires, unless deliberately targetted or shift-qued to pass through it. Its stupid that the autodriver damages his own vehicle...
2) Veterancy should slightly, incrementally, increase cold resistance.
3) I agree, and feel, that the detrimental effects of cold to speed and combat modifiers, should be fairly significantly imcreased, in order to force a) serious tactical planning of infantey warmth for blizzards b) make warmth a priority .
4) Buildings are FAR too resistant to destruction. "Scorched Earth " style deliberate destruction and denial of enemy hard cold counters needs to be a plausible strategy.

My point is that cover is so fragile(excepting buildings), that units already freeze pretty fast. If units only suffered cold penalties but not death, I think the freezing mechanic would work a lot better.

If units only suffered cold penalties but not death, I think the freezing mechanic would work a lot better.

Why?

Because then there would be a legitimate reason to move around even when frozen instead of just hunkering down in cover or finding a heat source, and players would face interesting strategic tradeoffs (do I use my cold unit to fight, when it will be less effective, or do I warm it up? do I spend the extra micro to keep people warm, or is that attention better spent elsewhere? do I bother rebuilding destroyed fires to warm up, or just accept that in a blizzard my units will freeze? do I focus fire the frozen enemy unit that I want to kill more, even though because it's frozen it's not doing as much damage in this specific fight?) instead of what they currently face (well, my unit's freezing, better retreat it or get it to cover because basically no other option is viable).