Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Toidi -> Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 4:53:50 AM)

The displayed CV is way too far from the adjusted CV values.
I was waiting with this post until end of blizzard (so no false doubling of cv is given to the soviets, mountain etc).

German attack, Soviets defend, *no forts* unless written.

Those are all attack results from a single turn (turn 38) are (modified cv ---> final cv):

Initial ---> Final

161:113 ---> 201:13 (fort 1->0)
152:156 ---> 299:48 (fort 1->0)
193:262 ---> 474:34
169:129 ---> 303:16 (fort 1->0)
140:163 ---> 281:76
13:13 ---> 19:0 (odds 95:1)
19:13 ---> 39:10
20:11 ---> 13:6
40:39 ---> 62:50 (single hold)
35:35 ---> 76:35 (replay, now it does not hold anymore)
47:51 ---> 85:28
120:124 ---> 248:103
31:24 ---> 70:14
31:12 ---> 65:10
29:1 ---> 22:1
28:5 ---> 66:3
26:1 ---> 51:0
200:143 ---> 340:106
16:9 ---> 19:2
27:8 ---> 31:10
81:10 ---> 88:6
37:17 ---> 78:26
18:31 !!! ---> 47:10
17:28 ---> 23:7
23:3 ---> 92:5
73:46 ---> 132:65
63:4 ---> 120:4
34:1 ---> 101:1
39:8 ---> 40:16
21:10 ---> 55:10
14:18 ---> 49:3
25:44 ---> 111:4
36:7 ---> 61:3
22:10 ---> 64:5
95:63 ---> 200:90
34:17 ---> 63:16
53:29 ---> 106:34

As such, almost always real German CV is roughly double the displayed one. Also, Soviet CV is roughly half.

Note, that most of the battles (apart of the first 5 which were in the north with not that great leaders, but solid ones) were pretty much with the best Soviet leaders available (Tolbukhin, Malinowsky, Rokossovsky etc), so, I guess at least better than average leaders.

It is hugely frustrating to have defense set based on the displayed CV, finding out that the whole displayed thing is just rubbish. I thought that it is due to supply levels, ammo etc. But not this time, I really took care.

As such, I can understand that Germans are *that* strong (of course I will not try to defend in such case). But let me know - otherwise it just makes the game totally unpleasant to play. I understand *some* variation - but sort of centered around the value that is given on the counter. However, the value displayed is clearly wrong - the displayed German one should be multiplied by 2, the Soviet one maybe divided by two. Otherwise, the discrepancy is just too large and make the game pretty pointless to play.

Also, please account for leadership in the displayed CV value, so the units under better leadership has larger CV. I would like to see the variation much less and centered around the displayed value - as it is now, it is hugely misleading - and for me, pretty game breaking.



Farfarer61 -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 5:04:39 AM)

amen. give me some useful info for all my patrolling represented as "atttrition losses".



Apollo11 -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 12:24:58 PM)

Hi all,

Please refer to WitE manual - in it the CV is explained! [;)]

Thus, the on counter CVs you see are different than CVs calculated in battle!


BTW it is not possible to include various dice rolls in on counter CVs - it is quite obvious that CVs would fluctuate constantly and then the CVs would server no purpose at all...

quote:


7.1. Combat Value (CV)

All ground units have a combat value (CV) that is used to determine the results of a battle. The unit CV is equal to the sum of the individual CV’s for each ground element in the combat or support unit. The CV is representative of the ability to take or hold territory, often referred to as "boots on the ground." Thus the CV ratings of ground elements are weighted toward infantry and AFV ground elements, while artillery and other guns, though they have good firepower, tend to have low CV’s (26.1.4). Unlike fixed combat factors that are found in other games, the CV in Gary Grigsby’s War in the East is a calculated value that can only provide players an idea of the combat ability of the unit. Displayed Unit CV’s are determined by a complex formula that takes into account the different ground elements making up the unit as well as unit morale, experience, fatigue, leadership and supply. CV values displayed for units are non-random approximations of what in combat is a series of die rolls and thus somewhat random values, so no single CV can be more than a guide to how the unit will perform in any particular combat. When Fog of War (FOW) is enabled the accuracy of the CV will be further degraded as the detection level (DL) decreases (13).



Leo "Apollo11"



carlkay58 -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 2:31:38 PM)

A few possibilities:

Note that the Soviets lose 10-20% of their combat strength when not defending in level 2+ forts until Dec 42. This is right off the top.

Axis units have the additional corps level of command that increases the likelihood of making their checks.

Axis Morale is probably at least 20-30 points higher than the Soviets - their NM is 30 points higher than the Soviets in Spring 42. Morale differences make a HUGE CV difference.



Baelfiin -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 2:47:15 PM)

Are you counting corp level support units that are being committed to the attack in your initial CV dispalyed? Artillery and Air support can cause changes between what you see and what you end up with.



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 9:41:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Please refer to WitE manual - in it the CV is explained! [;)]

Thus, the on counter CVs you see are different than CVs calculated in battle!


BTW it is not possible to include various dice rolls in on counter CVs - it is quite obvious that CVs would fluctuate constantly and then the CVs would server no purpose at all...



Apollo, I know what is written in the manual very well. Almost too well. This is why I am so unhappy.

The CV on the counters is well off. And it is a rule, not an exception. I provided enough data to show that it is wrong . As such it needs to be changed! Surely, you can get a better display approximation than it is there now - now it is a joke. Game which does not provide meaningful information to the players is a badly designed game. Those displayed CV are totally misleading - as such they must be changed! Make this your priority.

As for including leaders, well, it seems that Germans in this turn had over 90% chance for changing CV to twice. Sorry, this can easily be included in the CV displayed. Just double it. No excuses!!!



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 9:46:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

A few possibilities:

Note that the Soviets lose 10-20% of their combat strength when not defending in level 2+ forts until Dec 42. This is right off the top.

Axis units have the additional corps level of command that increases the likelihood of making their checks.

Axis Morale is probably at least 20-30 points higher than the Soviets - their NM is 30 points higher than the Soviets in Spring 42. Morale differences make a HUGE CV difference.



It is all true! I just want to have it included in the on map CV (btw, morale is included I believe). It can be done and should be done. Some of those, like the loss of combat strength when not defending in level 2+ (or is it 3?) should be included in the CV immediately. If the CV can be displayed as doubled on map during blizzard, it surely can be multiplied by 0.8 when not in lvl 2+ entrenchment. As such, it needs fixing and fast, as otherwise the game does not provide right information to either of the player. I am fine with scattering of the values around the displayed CV. I am totally not fine when the combat values are not scattered, but systematically wrong - and this is the case right now. The game now does not provide right information to the players (both of them), as such it is broken - and badly broken.



Baelfiin -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 9:48:16 PM)

Any chance of a screenshot showing what your concerns are Toidi? I see your list above but I dont understand what it means in game terms.



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 9:52:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Are you counting corp level support units that are being committed to the attack in your initial CV dispalyed? Artillery and Air support can cause changes between what you see and what you end up with.


Of course, those are counted. Air is not really - because it is not counted in the displayed CV at the beginning of the battle. Support units are: this is how I got all those numbers - from the battle screens, after pressing F11. Again, for the support units, HQ should have the combat value equal to the support units in the HQ. Maybe they should displace as they do now, but the offensive CV should be displayed. It would give good estimate of how good units you have in the HQ. Defensive value may be zero, as it is now.

My point is that the values are systematically wrong - Germans are actually twice too low, Russians are somewhat too high. This is game breaking as the player is not given right information. I am fine with approximate information, and some scattering of the values. But my data show that the CV approximation is systematically wrong, and that should be fixed.



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 9:54:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Any chance of a screenshot showing what your concerns are Toidi? I see your list above but I dont understand what it means in game terms.


Sure, I can post all the screenshots from the battle reports - with the initial CV displayed and final odds. Will take few hours to prepare. Is that really necessary?



Baelfiin -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 10:08:03 PM)

Just trying to help dude. I know it can be frustrating not being able to see every nut, bolt and die roll in the combat calculations.
You do understand that the initial CV is just that: initial. Its before air power, before artillery, before leadership.
Maybe just one or two screenies so that I'm looking at the same thing you are 8)



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 10:43:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Just trying to help dude. I know it can be frustrating not being able to see every nut, bolt and die roll in the combat calculations.
You do understand that the initial CV is just that: initial. Its before air power, before artillery, before leadership.
Maybe just one or two screenies so that I'm looking at the same thing you are 8)


The thing is that I quite understand the mechanics and how the game works. Actually, I can somehow justify most of the *reductions* in the Soviet CV. But I cannot justify systematic increases of the Axis CV - it seems to me that they really should be doubled on display. Actually - not really doubled but multiplied by the likehood that their CV will be doubled in battle - which in this turn would be actually pretty much doubled (this is not difficult to do, as you get the probability of rolls on all chains of commands and multiply the displayed value). Same for Soviets, I would like to have their CV adjusted, so the real battles are more or less scattered around the initial CV. As for air support, again, I think that the probability of getting air support should be included in CV, so basically when you move the air base closer, the cv of the units should increase. In such case, the game will be much less frustrating - both for the Germans (who will know that they can attack more or less safely) and for the Soviets (who will know whether they can defend or not). As it is now, the whole strategy can be trashed due to the fact that the displayed attack CV are just too low for German and the defense CV are too high for Soviets. And you are frustrated that the game gave you wrong information - had you had it correct, you would acted differently.

The funny thing is, that, the defense CV of Germans is more or less right, and the attack CV of Russians (if not in blizzard, where in Feb I had to attack 3-4:1 to have a decent chance of success [yes on final 1:1 odds], so no 1:1 even after including graphical doubling of CV) is more or less ok. But not the other way round - the attack CV of Germans is too low, the defense one of Russians a bit too high - however for the Russians maybe just this 0.8 multiplication due to not being in entrenchments will be enough to do the job.

I will post the battle reports you request. Will take some time though... I had those issues for a long time but waited till blizzard ends, to post results in snow, so less randomness is included...



DTurtle -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 10:48:06 PM)

The thing is that the initial CV value is at the start of the battle. The final CV value only reflects elements that are not destroyed, damaged, or disrupted. Since the Soviets can see humongous numbers in disruption, etc this has large influence on the final CV comparison.

In addition, the doubling of Soviet CV is only for on-map CV - it does not double the actual CV of those units in the combats or in the battle reports.



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 10:59:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

The thing is that the initial CV value is at the start of the battle. The final CV value only reflects elements that are not destroyed, damaged, or disrupted. Since the Soviets can see humongous numbers in disruption, etc this has large influence on the final CV comparison.

In addition, the doubling of Soviet CV is only for on-map CV - it does not double the actual CV of those units in the combats or in the battle reports.




There is no doubling of CV in March, sorry. That is why I waited until March.

As for the disruption, I know how it works very well. Still, the CV values for Germans are clearly wrong. And actually I believe that the displayed CV values for Soviets are also wrong - one thing is the 0.8 modifier - if it is not included in the display, it should be ASAP. The other thing is that it should be taken into account that they will be disrupted, based on the reckon around (if you have no reckon, ok, no change, but if you know that there is that much artillery and planes around you cannot counter with your own planes, display the CV lower).

The CV values for Germans now are hugely misleading as those are almost always doubled. The CV values for Soviets are misleading, as they are almost always lower.



carlkay58 -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 11:39:05 PM)

I understand what you are saying Toidi. I find that as the Axis I want the total displayed CV to be twice the Soviet's displayed CV to win regularly. The Soviet CV, on the other hand, needs to be eight to ten times the displayed Axis to regularly win (and that is with the 1:1->2:1 shift). You just have to get a feel for it and go with it.



Apollo11 -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 11:43:57 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Please refer to WitE manual - in it the CV is explained! [;)]

Thus, the on counter CVs you see are different than CVs calculated in battle!


BTW it is not possible to include various dice rolls in on counter CVs - it is quite obvious that CVs would fluctuate constantly and then the CVs would server no purpose at all...



Apollo, I know what is written in the manual very well. Almost too well. This is why I am so unhappy.

The CV on the counters is well off. And it is a rule, not an exception. I provided enough data to show that it is wrong . As such it needs to be changed! Surely, you can get a better display approximation than it is there now - now it is a joke. Game which does not provide meaningful information to the players is a badly designed game. Those displayed CV are totally misleading - as such they must be changed! Make this your priority.

As for including leaders, well, it seems that Germans in this turn had over 90% chance for changing CV to twice. Sorry, this can easily be included in the CV displayed. Just double it. No excuses!!!


I am afraid that you didn't understand what I wrote - that's why I will again refer you to manual! [sm=terms.gif]

Also bashing developers will get you nowhere - thus please mind your language here (I refer you to BOLD RED ITALICS in your post)!!!


The CV number you see on counters on map are just approximations - we told you that guys hundreds of times - the actual CV values that appear in combat screens are what counts (and those can be altered by FoW - so beware).


We can't make the CV numbers on counters on map be more "realistic" because that is impossible to do - the combat depends on so many variables that can change via various dice rolls that are unique (i.e. no combat will be same)!



Leo "Apollo11"



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 11:44:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I understand what you are saying Toidi. I find that as the Axis I want the total displayed CV to be twice the Soviet's displayed CV to win regularly. The Soviet CV, on the other hand, needs to be eight to ten times the displayed Axis to regularly win (and that is with the 1:1->2:1 shift). You just have to get a feel for it and go with it.




Actually Axis need 1:1 displayed CV to comfortably win in March '42, and that was acknowledged by my opponent. I want the displayed CV of axis be doubled, so it is 2:1 on display and on battle screen. Also, I would suggest lowering the displayed Soviet CV somewhat. And no, I am not willing to live with it; I believe it is a bad game design.

Actually, when I attack in March, things are more or less ok - if I attack with 2x German CV, I generally have good chances to win. However, Germans can easily attack with equal CV and be almost certain that they win. As such, their displayed attack CV should be doubled, to account for that. Also, Soviet defensive CV should be lowered a little bit, as it is rarely around the initial value at the end of the battle.



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/2/2012 11:49:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Please refer to WitE manual - in it the CV is explained! [;)]

Thus, the on counter CVs you see are different than CVs calculated in battle!


BTW it is not possible to include various dice rolls in on counter CVs - it is quite obvious that CVs would fluctuate constantly and then the CVs would server no purpose at all...



Apollo, I know what is written in the manual very well. Almost too well. This is why I am so unhappy.

The CV on the counters is well off. And it is a rule, not an exception. I provided enough data to show that it is wrong . As such it needs to be changed! Surely, you can get a better display approximation than it is there now - now it is a joke. Game which does not provide meaningful information to the players is a badly designed game. Those displayed CV are totally misleading - as such they must be changed! Make this your priority.

As for including leaders, well, it seems that Germans in this turn had over 90% chance for changing CV to twice. Sorry, this can easily be included in the CV displayed. Just double it. No excuses!!!


I am afraid that you didn't understand what I wrote - that's why I will again refer you to manual! [sm=terms.gif]

Also bashing developers will get you nowhere - thus please mind your language here (I refer you to BOLD RED ITALICS in your post)!!!


The CV number you see on counters on map are just approximations - we told you that guys hundreds of times - the actual CV values that appear in combat screens are what counts (and those can be altered by FoW - so beware).


We can't make the CV numbers on counters on map be more "realistic" because that is impossible to do - the combat depends on so many variables that can change via various dice rolls that are unique (i.e. no combat will be same)!



Leo "Apollo11"



Apollo, but the approximations are way off the mark. This is what I am saying, and as such they should be changed!

If your approximation 9 times out of 10 is twice too low, this shows that the approximation is not that great! It is, I think relatively obvious, and I cannot understand why anyone has any issues with that. And yes, I believe that if you feed wrong information to the players, you - unfortunately - need to be prepared to hearing things like above. I can't understand how you can defend the displayed "approximations" when they are clearly wrong. If something is wrong 9 times out of 10, well, you should probably change it so it is correct 9 times out of 10, not defend the built in values.



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 12:03:49 AM)

Part 1 of screens:

[image]local://upfiles/39528/C68C47FCB6A1426CA1163A889DF015E9.jpg[/image]



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 12:06:37 AM)

Screens part 2 of 3:



[image]local://upfiles/39528/424B24A3A0F247DDA0C2935B981AC429.jpg[/image]



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 12:08:24 AM)

part 3 of 3

[image]local://upfiles/39528/866CC287B6CE441D8A02B0D3EA0DBC2A.jpg[/image]



Flaviusx -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 12:55:06 AM)

Toidi, if we did as you suggested, the displays would be equally if not more deceptive.

All displayed CVs in this game are provisional, at best. Too many factors depend on in combat effects that cannot be fully predicted ex ante.

Also, March madness is very very weird. You shouldn't use that as a data sample to predict what happens at any given point in the war. I'm not exactly sure what's up with March of 42, but it's off somehow.






Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 1:27:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Toidi, if we did as you suggested, the displays would be equally if not more deceptive.

All displayed CVs in this game are provisional, at best. Too many factors depend on in combat effects that cannot be fully predicted ex ante.

Also, March madness is very very weird. You shouldn't use that as a data sample to predict what happens at any given point in the war. I'm not exactly sure what's up with March of 42, but it's off somehow.



Well, I don't understand why displaying values closer to final cv in battle would be more deceptive. Actually, I think it would be much more helpful. At least I would not have any delusions about defending anything. But if you think it would be deceptive, than just include both - one as it is now, one with the adjusted values, most likely to be close to the final cv values. Sort of cycling, like cycling the display of defensive cv and movement points.

And sure, the displayed values are provisional, but it seems they can be improved easily. And if in most fights the provisional value is twice too low for Germans, it is probably better to have provisional value closer to double the value. Also, I believe that some changes, e.g. due to leadership may be quite easily included - if you have 90% chance of having the cv doubled, than well, just multiply the value by 1.9. With the defensive value, it is much more difficult - I agree. But at least the reduction to 80% because of not being in entrenchment high enough should be displayed. Ideally, much better prediction of defensive value should be available.

As for march, I understand that combat system works exactly the same as before. This is the base of my argument in changes of the displayed CV values.

If you are right and March is special, than that is either a feature or a bug. If it is a feature, than I would like to know how it works and - again I would strongly suggest at least doubling the Axis CV and multiplying the Soviet one by 0.8 due to the rule I have been told is in place until '43. If it is a bug, it needs to be dealt with.

Actually the combat in February (we got snow) was exactly the same - can post if it would change anything.

Anyway, thanks for taking your time to reply...



Baelfiin -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 2:07:16 AM)

Interesting to note that it looks like most of the large swings occurred on hasty attacks.
Both of you guys are using 1.05.45 correct?

What kind of supply and ammunition were your guys in before they got hit?
Fatigue levels and morale levels?

I could see some of those results if it is fresh rested troops hitting tired overextended low supply russian defenders.



Farfarer61 -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 2:14:06 AM)

"The displayed Combat Values of units are provisional at best."

Things that make you go "Hmmm".




Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 2:29:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Interesting to note that it looks like most of the large swings occurred on hasty attacks.
Both of you guys are using 1.05.45 correct?

What kind of supply and ammunition were your guys in before they got hit?
Fatigue levels and morale levels?

I could see some of those results if it is fresh rested troops hitting tired overextended low supply russian defenders.


Well, what I do see is that the Germans have their CV doubled almost every time.

Anyway, the Shock armies and armies in south east part of the battles were fresh off the rail, not fatigued, full supply, on a railhead or one hex away.

Some guys in the south-west were a bit fatigued as they moved last time. Generally, all the stacks had at least 80% of supply and ammunition at their disposal (i.e. green corner on the supply layer, I checked the ammo by myself). All were within the rail network, say 2-3 hexes from the railhead. Not really overextended, though were rushed from reserve there to open encirclement. I had unused planes to sent supplies in the end of the turn... Tanks may have little fuel, but they had supplies and ammo. I did not sent fuel, just supplies.

Again, the thing is that I can somehow explain why Russians have their CV reduced in the south west, exactly due to supply etc. Not that I am happy about that, but I can. However, for the guys in the south-east, it is a bit more tough. I put stacks of my best troops there, to have a chance to open the encirclement from that side next time. They were fresh, from the rail, moved from front to the rail turn before. Supplied. Full of ammo. Good leadership. Anyway, many of those did not have their cv crippled, just probably reduced in line with this 80% if there were not much disparity with planes etc.

Still, the attackers cv was almost always doubled. Doubling should be an exception, not the rule. As it is the rule, the attackers CV should be displayed as 2x the actual one. And the defender CV should be multiplied by 0.8, as that modifier apparently applies always, as long as guys are not very well entrenched. Just to provide correct information to both players. Otherwise, it feels that the game cheats. And I do not want to play games which cheat.



Joel Billings -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 4:01:32 AM)

Just to be clear, the adjusted CV at the end does not include any of the ground elements that are disrupted during the battle (or damaged or destroyed). Much of the defender force can be disrupted and thus not count in the final totals. Leader rolls can lead to an increase in the CV value.



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 4:30:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just to be clear, the adjusted CV at the end does not include any of the ground elements that are disrupted during the battle (or damaged or destroyed). Much of the defender force can be disrupted and thus not count in the final totals. Leader rolls can lead to an increase in the CV value.



Joel, thanks for your response.

I am perfectly clear about what you say. However, if leaders rolls doubles CV value in great majority of cases, showing lower CV is misleading. Actually it should be put that in some cases leaders rolls may lead to halving the CV. As such, the attacking CV is way off the mark. As for the defensive CV, I know about the disrupted elements - as such I do not complain about the results. What I complain about is that what looks good on paper (well, the on-screen CV) and is such that there should be no issue with defending a hex (or at least I should have a fair chance), whereas in reality there is no such chance at all.

As such, I am quite unhappy that Axis can, as my opponent put, safely attack on the initial 1:1 odds, because his cv is almost always doubled. I am quite unhappy that my theoretically very high defensive cv was worth nothing multiple times. And again, I can understand it once, twice, fine. But it is in almost every battle - as such the displayed CV should be reworked (or an additional option to display modified CV should be made). This will be to benefit both of players - Germans - as they will know whether they can attack with non-modified odds 1:1 - and Soviets - as they will be able to know whether defending has any chance. Those are basic informations and should be available for players. It will lead to game of skill, without guessing of the modifiers hidden in the game engine. As it is now, the displayed values are misleading and can lead to decisions never made should the modified values were taken into account.

Also, as the Russian CV is apparently multiplied by 0.8 if not in high entrenchments, that should also be put into displayed CV.

Note that I do not argue with the game mechanics, relative player strength etc. I just want to have a bit better information, and I believe that game should provide that to both players. I believe, also, that the information provided at the moment is quite misleading - and as such it should be amended or new information should be added. It is not a big deal for the engine to compute CV with included probability of doubling/ halving due to leadership in attack/defense is easy. Taking into account air support/ lack of it and influence of artillery is much more difficult. Still, I would like to have some estimate so I can make a more educated choice in game. As it is now, the displayed CV is so far off the mark, than it really does not offer proper information, especially for defense (but I had my issues in attacking during blizzard, where initial odds 3:1 led many times to final odds below 1:1 and failed attacks, but that is something I do not want to discuss in this thread; in attack you can adjust relatively easily, in defense you cannot adjust anything, and as such the misleading values are much more important to fix).

The game which misleads the player about the rules, is not a good game. Game should provide information to player, and as full as possible. Here, the whole historical accuracy about the forces and TOE seems to be worth nothing if in the end you cannot provide the player with the very basic information on how much defensive value it has. Or how much offensive value it has. It feels that game is cheating as the broad rules (like odds 2:1 required to attack) are not followed and the players are given vastly wrong information about the strength of their forces. I understand that it is impossible to get a pinpoint combat value - maybe it would not be fun to have such. But having combat value so far off (attacking, 100% more as marked, defensive, maybe 30% less as marked) just makes the experience of playing very bad.



JAMiAM -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 4:59:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toidi
Also, as the Russian CV is apparently multiplied by 0.8 if not in high entrenchments, that should also be put into displayed CV.

I keep seeing this statement bandied about, yet afaik, there is no basis in fact for it. Where did this claim come from, other than a misrepresentation of carlkay58's statement regarding attritional losses, perhaps?



Toidi -> RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix (1/3/2012 5:09:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I keep seeing this statement bandied about, yet afaik, there is no basis in fact for it. Where did this claim come from, other than a misrepresentation of carlkay58's statement regarding attritional losses, perhaps?


quote:

Note that the Soviets lose 10-20% of their combat strength when not defending in level 2+ forts until Dec 42. This is right off the top.


Well, if the Russian CV is not multiplied by 0.8 and the statement was about attritional losses, that is very fine for me. Glad there is no additional rule which reduces CV by stealth. I heard about it first in this thread... Though 10- 20% of attritional losses seems to me also a bit off the mark... Thanks for clearing this issue, JAMiAM!




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625