Why is CV so misleading?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Why is CV so misleading?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Why is CV so misleading?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Why is CV so misleading? - 11/8/2021 5:25:20 PM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

Question is title. The CV in almost every instance in this game is an outright fabrication, and the game never shows it's working.

There is a logic, I'm sure, to the many battles on both sides having CVs inflated or cut to 1/12th of their original number, but why does the game not clearly highlight to us the reasons for this? Instead, we need to infer from other contextual clues - I need to check to see the air disruption, to see how many ground elements were disrupted, did I have enough ammo, supply, were my leaders good enough?

Does the terrain affect my ground elements? Perhaps fatigue played a part? There's a thousand different things to check that all can affect the CV - but why am I forced to use guesswork for most of it?

I'm pretty sure this game doesn't even tell you if you pass leader rolls for a specific thing besides supply, right?

This CV misdirection is prevalent throughout the entire game, but perhaps most especially during the first blizzard for both sides. You can be sitting on a level 3 fort as the axis, with well supplied troops at 100 CPP on dense terrain, and have your CVs 1/3rded because... Why? The game won't tell you, you just have to infer by checking a ton of different things that might be the reason why the battle failed.

For the Soviets it's arguably worse, at least you can chalk it up to harsh blizzard for the axis CV reduction. Throughout the entire game, perhaps until 43/44 (though never reached that far as them) your CVs will fluctuate massively during battles both offensively and defensively. You can be sitting on good terrain, with a good leader, on a fort, during blizzard, and still have your CV reduced to 1/10th it's original number as the Axis rout your 3 stack.

There is no feedback as to why this happens, thus there is no way to avoid it unless you're a master of the labyrinthine combat system and know what cog goes where.

I feel like I'm going insane when I think I have a grip of things, just to have offensives peter out and defensive lines broken because the when the CV says 45 it actually meant 0.45 after reduction.

So yeah, I would sincerely appreciate a more transparent results section that tells me what went wrong.

Post #: 1

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/8/2021 7:24:51 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

There are two parts to the cv calculation and its impact.

One strand is easy to work out if that floats your boat.

Unit cv is a mathematical relationship based on the elements - see the table in 34.4

23.8.3 gives you the mathematical alterations that then happen before combat starts

8.6.1 (and here look at the Living Manual as the errata is important) then adds some more. One constraint as the release manual had to be under 500 pages (something we failed to achieve) but we couldn't have too much repetition so unfortunately some things are a best guess as to where they should be.

Then 23.8.4 starts to give you the leadership modifications to cv. These are mathematical but probability based.

There is then the impact of all the in-combat dice rolls and tests that drop elements to disrupted or worse.

This, I think is where the real variability kicks in but I fail to see what is the alternative? In general low exp elements miss more shots than high experience and small units can get overwhelmed. Those are the main variable elements.

Others stem from the cv calculation. For the most part a tank is a tank and worth 9 cv. Even in 1941 this is clearly not the case in actual combat, a T34 is better than a BT7, a Pzr III than one of the Czech P38s.

So specifically axis units in winter get hit by 8.6.1 (esp the errata), in effect you can't hold a non-urban hex if the Soviets really want it. As discussed elsewhere the real safety net for the axis play in the first winter is not fortifications its a robust supply net with lots of depots and a fair of redundancy

_____________________________

(in reply to RedJohn)

Post #: 2

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 12:11:20 AM

RedJohn

Posts: 517
Joined: 9/20/2019
Status: offline

What I'd like ideally is a more transparent system when it comes to those sorts of rolls. Obviously there will always be variability; I'm not hoping to get the combat system revamped, and honestly I have no real issues with 41/42 Soviets getting absolutely blasted sometimes. It's to be expected.

But for things like leader checks, is there any reason why the passing/failing of these checks isn't conveyed to the player? The game already makes the calculations and rolls the dice, so at the risk of sounding stupid; why can't it just show us what checks have been failed and passed in the combat resolution screen?

That way it at least shows the player what has happened to modify the CV as such.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 3

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 3:29:36 AM

MarkShot

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline

A good example of combat reporting is the system used in Matrix/Slitherine's Field of Glory 2. It includes both values, tests, computations, and final result. (and is fully optional if you care to see it)

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北，台灣，中國退休)

(in reply to RedJohn)

Post #: 4

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:16:34 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

What I'd like ideally is a more transparent system when it comes to those sorts of rolls. Obviously there will always be variability; I'm not hoping to get the combat system revamped, and honestly I have no real issues with 41/42 Soviets getting absolutely blasted sometimes. It's to be expected.

But for things like leader checks, is there any reason why the passing/failing of these checks isn't conveyed to the player? The game already makes the calculations and rolls the dice, so at the risk of sounding stupid; why can't it just show us what checks have been failed and passed in the combat resolution screen?

That way it at least shows the player what has happened to modify the CV as such.

I think some of this is connected to the game engine, and the core of that was put together in the early 2000s when 2by3 first considered something like WiTE. Less than ideal response but there we are. I know that the designers can indeed see that sort of outcome but that is using their testing mode.

I remember doing a set of tests on isolated instances of the same attackers/defenders using WiTW. Tediously I ran it 20 times - so enough for some statistical validity. Then again with different commanders. In the end I came away with a decent feel for how the rolls work out.

There is one way to get the detailed combat log if you want.

Add the switch -bDump to your WiTE2 exe (if this sounds scary then don't do it) and the combat logs get saved and can be captured in a csv file. Now this is what did damage to what (so the stuff you see at level 7 resolution), eg:

Now in a turn of a number of combats, that file is going to be huge, so this is not user-friendly or ideal but does allow you to unpick some of the aggregated information in the combat report.

edit - I remember Dominik addded a cv mode that was based on the average of the leader values in the chain and the net probability of how they would affect the actual cv. I never really liked that as oddly I found it more misleading than accepting what you see is a purely arithmetic process and then that there is a degree of probability to take account of. No idea how easy or otherwise that would be to bring into WiTE2 and I'm not sure it helps.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by loki100 -- 11/9/2021 7:23:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to RedJohn)

Post #: 5

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:22:30 AM

MarkShot

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline

How is that different then the battle CSVs being produced in the beta?

However, it is still abstracted, since it tells you what the output is, and not the inputs.

Thanks.

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北，台灣，中國退休)

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 6

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:32:53 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

How is that different then the battle CSVs being produced in the beta?

However, it is still abstracted, since it tells you what the output is, and not the inputs.

Thanks.

its not, but watching the battle is slow and the information gets lost, this allows you to look over it and set up analyses - I'm not suggesting it as a solution just that its there.

_____________________________

(in reply to MarkShot)

Post #: 7

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:48:31 AM

altipueri

Posts: 869
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline

OT @loki - I bought the game and your 500 page manual in March but still haven't faced up to the task of playing - you say above the living manual errata are important - but for a new player will the physical manual be good enough? (I'm expecting a long cold winter to add the appropriate atmosphere for an east front game)

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 8

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:48:52 AM

xmax

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/20/2021
Status: offline

Could this battle log be added to the battle resolution screen as an additional tab with filters like the logistics screen in the commander's report?

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 9

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:55:37 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

OT @loki - I bought the game and your 500 page manual in March but still haven't faced up to the task of playing - you say above the living manual errata are important - but for a new player will the physical manual be good enough? (I'm expecting a long cold winter to add the appropriate atmosphere for an east front game)

yes, the changes are marginal so far, its not like with #1 when the fundamentals were getting shifted around between patches.

one handy feature in the Living Manual is every change (whether documenting something we missed or reflecting rules changes) is marked as 'errata', so a search on that term will take you to all the changes since the formal manual - handy for a quick scan.

I suppose a key difference is that when I want to check rules in WiTW I go to the Living Manual, in WiTE2 I still tend to refer to the release manual

_____________________________

(in reply to altipueri)

Post #: 10

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:57:35 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xmax

Could this battle log be added to the battle resolution screen as an additional tab with filters like the logistics screen in the commander's report?

for a small battle it can be 100s of lines long, for a large one can hit 1,000. Its feasible that the aggregate for a turn is well into the 100,000s of lines.

Its not designed to be used and I suspect would cause massive processing problems. All I've done above is shown how it can be accessed - I personally never would

_____________________________

(in reply to xmax)

Post #: 11

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 8:15:15 AM

EddyBear81

Posts: 153
Joined: 2/10/2012
From: Lille, France
Status: offline

I wouldn't want the CV calculation to be more transparent. I feel the uncertainty adds to the thrill of the game.

You have to decide based on the information you have.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 12

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 9:43:04 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

...

But for things like leader checks, is there any reason why the passing/failing of these checks isn't conveyed to the player? The game already makes the calculations and rolls the dice, so at the risk of sounding stupid; why can't it just show us what checks have been failed and passed in the combat resolution screen?
...

apols about adding to this but there is a particular issue here that is worth noting.

There is not one roll where leadership influences the cv, there are a mass of them - and this actually links to the 100s of lines of the combat log above.

If we ignore leadership rolls around reserve reactions they affect fundamental things like SU assignment. Those bring in/set aside big chunks of elements and I believe each SU is tested separately till the allocation is used up.

Then almost every combat fire is linked to a leadership roll, there is then a chance that a hit gets downgraded, I think that one keys off element experience and leadership roll. Resupply in combat is another batch of leadership rolls.

So if it was a single test, then Mark is right, the reporting say in Field of Glory is useful, but its not. Its 100s of the damn things depending on the size of the battle, almost every combat interaction involves the hard data of the weapon systems, the relative experience and morale of the elements and a leadership test.

Most of these use the infantry-mech scores but I suspect some draw on the initiative values, possibly some on the admin values (morale mainly affecting post battle recovery).

_____________________________

(in reply to RedJohn)

Post #: 13

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 10:03:04 AM

Stamb

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline

Is it possible to create additional tab with the info about leader checks that will display percent of completed/failed rolls?

For example:

Shooting 100 / 1000
Resupplying 90 / 100

We have similar feature for a supply. With an amount of failed checks and penalty value.

In this case players will be able to understand that this time it was bad RNG for them and next attack/defense might be better.

P.S

Wanted to make better example, but i can not post some symbols as my account does not have 10 posts and 7 days after it

In case of shooting success rate of leader's checks is 10%
In case of resupplying success rate of leader's checks is 90%

< Message edited by Stamb -- 11/9/2021 10:06:22 AM >

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 14

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 12:33:22 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Is it possible to create additional tab with the info about leader checks that will display percent of completed/failed rolls?

For example:

Shooting 100 / 1000
Resupplying 90 / 100

We have similar feature for a supply. With an amount of failed checks and penalty value.

In this case players will be able to understand that this time it was bad RNG for them and next attack/defense might be better.

P.S

Wanted to make better example, but i can not post some symbols as my account does not have 10 posts and 7 days after it

In case of shooting success rate of leader's checks is 10%
In case of resupplying success rate of leader's checks is 90%

thats an excellent idea - not got a clue how feasible it is but it sidesteps the problem of too much information to make any sense of the effect and gives you a feel for how well the command chain worked.

_____________________________

(in reply to Stamb)

Post #: 15

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 2:24:52 PM

James80

Posts: 102
Joined: 1/27/2021
Status: offline

+1

that would be really cool and helpful

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 16

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:32:55 PM

Iam5not8

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

The absence of visibility and some uncertainty in the results is one the design option I really appreciate in that game.

It takes you back to the basics of operational command in the uncertain world of warfare, meaning for example :
1) I really need that position or do that breakthrhough, I will try to get a 3:1 odds in manpower with a lot of arty and other support
2) pursuing / attacking many times a unit is the best way to destroy it
3) attacking with tanks in bad terrain, heavy woods, urban... is a bad idea
4) inf is best in defense
5) operational maneuver is a usually a better way than brutal assault
6) battles in densed urban area is a bloodbath (specially in last releases)
7) With no ammo, you will not get far.
9) and so on...

I definitively prefer this uncertainty linked to a certain plausiblity (realism may be too strong for a game), than to precisely monitor each of the many parameters that influence the results.

Than of course, all the above is valid only if the combat engine does not have major flaws.

(in reply to James80)

Post #: 17

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 7:36:25 PM

Jango32

Posts: 307
Joined: 3/15/2021
Status: offline

Bread is just asking for a way to find out why units with CVs over 600 during battle can lose to units with 200 or so CV.

Or why initial high CVs just plummet into nothing.

< Message edited by Jango32 -- 11/9/2021 7:37:31 PM >

(in reply to Iam5not8)

Post #: 18

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 8:12:15 PM

jubjub

Posts: 493
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jango32

Or why initial high CVs just plummet into nothing.

There are two main reasons why CV's plummet.

1. Disrupted, damaged, destroyed elements from combat
2. Fort level reduction

These two are easy to calculate, and usually match up with the before and after values. If there's a discrepancy, it's probably due to numerical inferiority, reduction in ammo on hand, leader rolls etc.

quote:

Bread is just asking for a way to find out why units with CVs over 600 during battle can lose to units with 200 or so CV.

I only see this big of a discrepancy in urban combat. A single dug in rifle division can achieve 600 CV, but in combat, it can easily have 80% or more of it's elements disrupted.

Check the amount of causalities + disrupted in a battle first before assuming the drop is from intangible factors.

(in reply to Jango32)

Post #: 19

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/9/2021 10:05:14 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jango32

Bread is just asking for a way to find out why units with CVs over 600 during battle can lose to units with 200 or so CV.

Or why initial high CVs just plummet into nothing.

and there are plenty of attempts to answer the question above.

Some of the reasons are imposed relationships applied at the end of the combat process such as the hit on axis cv in the first winter.

Most come out of the complexity of the combat engine, to understand cv modification you need to understand that. But not only is it complex with potentially a lot of elements in action (even if not all hit) its not linear. By design there are sub-routines that may reward success (if you pass the requisite leadership rolls) and so on.

In the main this is all based on probabilities around the leadership values. The manual has examples of how to work out the % chance of passing a given test, so to jubjub's summary of the main reasons for variation I'd say leadership (& leadership chains).

_____________________________

(in reply to Jango32)

Post #: 20

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/10/2021 1:13:36 AM

GibsonPete

Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline

I prefer the uncertainty of the battle outcome. I remember playing games where it became a more of a math exercise than a game. The occasional unexpected result keeps me thinking and planning.

_____________________________

�Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.�

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 21

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/10/2021 5:29:41 AM

MarkShot

Posts: 7089
Joined: 3/29/2003
Status: offline

Here is the funny thing ...

Enemy CVs are all fogged up, but there other parts of the game that expose way more than you should known.

Like GG series is one of the few games when processing turns to give you flash (or slower based on scenario size and PC speed) from the other side's perspective.

I think showing the battle line by line data in the AAR screen would be useless without columns and filters. On the other hand, you can do much more of that with Excel or Access. With Access, you can database every battle and post process. 10 millions rows for Access is no big deal.

Although I have better things to do, it is feasible to write a background Access program that automatically adds these to a database and post processes them for later query speed. The reason I think my coding is not worth the trouble. I think the big picture issues of why you won or loss or already visible. I don't think neural net pattern analysis will reveal some deep insight that isn't already apparent.

But appreaciate their availability.

BUT BATTLES NEED A UNIQUE ID DISPLAYED IN ROLL OVERS, CRs, AAR, and CSVs. You current presentation makes the CSVs practically useless.

_____________________________

(於 11/13/21 台北，台灣，中國退休)

(in reply to GibsonPete)

Post #: 22

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/10/2021 7:12:06 AM

jlbhung

Posts: 280
Joined: 3/10/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jango32

Or why initial high CVs just plummet into nothing.

There are two main reasons why CV's plummet.

1. Disrupted, damaged, destroyed elements from combat
2. Fort level reduction

These two are easy to calculate, and usually match up with the before and after values. If there's a discrepancy, it's probably due to numerical inferiority, reduction in ammo on hand, leader rolls etc.

quote:

Bread is just asking for a way to find out why units with CVs over 600 during battle can lose to units with 200 or so CV.

I only see this big of a discrepancy in urban combat. A single dug in rifle division can achieve 600 CV, but in combat, it can easily have 80% or more of it's elements disrupted.

Check the amount of causalities + disrupted in a battle first before assuming the drop is from intangible factors.

Occasionally I attempted to work out the reduction in CV from the combat results when playing the game. Drawing from the experience, I concur with jubjub that in many cases the reduction can be explained by the combat loss and fort reduction (within a +100/- 50% range which I think could be accounted for by leader chk success/failure).

However, I found that in a few cases the drop is more drastic than can be explained by the suggested factors. Sometimes the CV dropped nearly 100% to zero, even for combatants at divisional size or larger. I observed that they often happened in cases where the Soviet side was defending and finally retreated, incurring additional significant retreating loss (due to (i) damaged elements turning to loss from retreat; (ii) additional loss imposed on retreating Soviet side during specific period; and (iii) huge additional retreat loss incurred when playing against AI at Morale level >=120).

My guess is that the final CV now shown has taken into account all the retreating loss, and the loss of all fortification due to retreat (a drop from fort level 5 to level 1 can result in 80% loss in CV) . However, I am more interested in the CV at the time of determining the combat result (whether the ratio is bigger than 2:1 for retreat or not), i.e. the CV before incurring retreating loss. At that stage there may even still be some fortification levels left. If my guess is correct, I think showing the defender CV at the time of determining combat result is better, which gives a more accurate reflection of the defender's performance in the battle, without interference from retreating loss.

< Message edited by jlbhung -- 11/10/2021 7:13:51 AM >

(in reply to jubjub)

Post #: 23

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/10/2021 8:04:06 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlbhung

...

My guess is that the final CV now shown has taken into account all the retreating loss, and the loss of all fortification due to retreat (a drop from fort level 5 to level 1 can result in 80% loss in CV) . However, I am more interested in the CV at the time of determining the combat result (whether the ratio is bigger than 2:1 for retreat or not), i.e. the CV before incurring retreating loss. At that stage there may even still be some fortification levels left. If my guess is correct, I think showing the defender CV at the time of determining combat result is better, which gives a more accurate reflection of the defender's performance in the battle, without interference from retreating loss.

yes, agree, there is a calculation at the end of the actual combat, usually if that passes the 2-1 test then a series of further losses (incl setting the fortifications to zero) takes place. The shown cv is that combat+retreat value and can be low due to disruptions etc.

I find a good place to see this is, as you say, the AI at 120+. At speed #2, you see the 'real' combat outcome, you then see the escalation (the tactical nukes) if this was a loss and that gives you some idea how the defending cv flowed across the steps

_____________________________

(in reply to jlbhung)

Post #: 24

RE: Why is CV so misleading? - 11/10/2021 9:02:46 AM

jlbhung

Posts: 280
Joined: 3/10/2021
Status: offline

Thank you loki for the clarification.

While speed#2 may be useful, I do not have the practice of watching the combats during the AI turn. Moreover, it is also not practicable for the non-playing user in a multiplayer game.

I propose that the final CV and the combat CV ratio shown at the combat result screen should use the CV at the end of the actual combat, without the retreat loss. Or at least show the "actual combat" CV in addtional to the current one. The current practice in my view is less useful, and in some extent could be misleading.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 25