NATO & Power Rating (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

VANorm -> NATO & Power Rating (1/19/2016 3:52:28 AM)

How can I display the Power Rating along with the NATO symbology; as is shown in the User Manual?

I gather from another thread and studying the game that the Power Rating is just an equipment count, and does NOT reflect any of the soft factors claimed in the manual. Any chance this can get fixed - a numerical assessment that better reflected actual combat effectiveness would reduce constant clicking and enable focus on actual operational decision making.

I hate little pictures of guys.

I just getting-into the game, but it looks fantastic.



Moltke71 -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/19/2016 4:19:20 PM)

One of the buttons on the top right of the bottom bar toggles NATO/silhouettes.



VANorm -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/19/2016 9:03:10 PM)


Yes, but at the intermediate zoom level pictures include Power Rating, but NATO symbols do not - only when fully zoomed in do the NATO symbols include Power Level.

In addition, since the Power Level seems to be just a count, the temperature gauge should incorporate ALL soft factors. That way the Power Level would communicate potential, but the temp gauge immediate capabilities.



lancer -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/21/2016 12:08:24 AM)

Hi nstewart,

Unfortunately the power rating isn't available with the Nato counters in normal zoom.

However the power rating does indeed take into account the 'soft factors' such as XP, morale and readiness.

Cheers,
Cameron



Vic -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/21/2016 6:24:15 AM)

Hi nstewart,

Correction there. :) In fact it does not take the soft factors into account. Its a rough estimate of the total ammount of equipment and troops.

best wishes,
Vic



VANorm -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/23/2016 9:57:31 PM)

Then does the thermometer take into account ALL the soft factors (besides Supply)? That would be a good balance.



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 12:49:07 AM)

First time player of this system, and I'm having a real conceptual crisis gauging what kind of attack "odds" I'm really getting. We seem to have a "power rating" that isn't really about power since it doesn't take into account the multitude of modifiers applied?? The combat setup screen only seems to show "raw stacking numbers" without any qualitative adjustment. So how the heck can I judge when I'm using twice (or half) as much force as I need for the desired result? I love the concept of all the decisions, etc., but if I can't truly judge the "modified/adjusted" combat power of my forces then what's the point? All this work put into playing cards that will give my troops advantages, but nothing gets reflected? My "70" power rated Panzer could have a "real" power of 125-- or 50. What am I missing? I'm pretty frustrated at the moment.



willgamer -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 1:52:32 AM)

This is a quote from the AAR section that says it well regarding the lack of CRTs-

Chuckberger wrote- "Warspite: one of things I love about this game is the fact that there is no CRT to view, that combat is to some degree a black box. In real life, generals had to make decisions based not on some transparent, perfect CRT, but rather on an intangible assessment of troop numbers, terrain, supply, experience etc etc. Too many wargames turn into an actuarial exercise when the CRT is known and can be min-maxed. Also, in too many wargames attacks never really fail, because the attacker can see when the odds are not in his favour. But in reality, attacks failed often, and often with terrible losses. In my opinion DC3 gets this exactly right. You have to make an educated guess about the chances of success of any given battle, and even a seasoned player will sometimes get it badly wrong! "



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 2:28:40 AM)

Reasonable points to a degree-- but those "transparent perfect CRTs" still had a lot of variability unless attacking in overwhelming strength (e.g., 7:1). I'll hack away for awhile and see if I can come to grips with it. But it's simply not enjoyable for me to spend all the time to engineer advantages and then have to "guess" what the REAL power of my units are, over dozens of combats per turn. It makes me FEEL like every result is just random chance (even if it's not true)--and again, what's the point? Everyone seems to be trying to do a lot of calculations in their head to approximate unit power instead of just displaying a real power rating in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, that's what the computer is for. And there would still be plenty of opportunities to gamble/take chances. I drank the Kool-Aid and paid my money, but so far I am disappointed. Wish there had been a demo.



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 10:05:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

Reasonable points to a degree-- but those "transparent perfect CRTs" still had a lot of variability unless attacking in overwhelming strength (e.g., 7:1). I'll hack away for awhile and see if I can come to grips with it. But it's simply not enjoyable for me to spend all the time to engineer advantages and then have to "guess" what the REAL power of my units are, over dozens of combats per turn. It makes me FEEL like every result is just random chance (even if it's not true)--and again, what's the point? Everyone seems to be trying to do a lot of calculations in their head to approximate unit power instead of just displaying a real power rating in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, that's what the computer is for. And there would still be plenty of opportunities to gamble/take chances. I drank the Kool-Aid and paid my money, but so far I am disappointed. Wish there had been a demo.

Thanks for warning me about what I agree is a serious flaw in this game. I was ready to drink the Kool-Aid myself (was about to buy the game) but now will not.



KenchiSulla -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 10:16:09 AM)

Everybody has a unique way of looking at situations. What I fail to understand is the big issue made out of a (in my mind) small thing.

It is an operational wargame, trying to manage / lead the people and units running the war. All the information is present and presented in a very interesting way. You get to review unit reports, asses terrain and supply. It is all there. You need to work a bit to get the overview but wasn't that a commanders job?

If you let your bias towards a game (you never played) get the better of you based on one persons personal experience you are going to miss out on a great experience...



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 10:42:20 AM)

Sorry, I don't like the idea of a conscript division being given the same power rating as a veteran division with the same number of troops and equipment.



KenchiSulla -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 11:58:10 AM)

The only thing I can say is: Your loss



James Ward -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 2:37:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

This is a quote from the AAR section that says it well regarding the lack of CRTs-

Chuckberger wrote- "Warspite: one of things I love about this game is the fact that there is no CRT to view, that combat is to some degree a black box. In real life, generals had to make decisions based not on some transparent, perfect CRT, but rather on an intangible assessment of troop numbers, terrain, supply, experience etc etc. Too many wargames turn into an actuarial exercise when the CRT is known and can be min-maxed. Also, in too many wargames attacks never really fail, because the attacker can see when the odds are not in his favour. But in reality, attacks failed often, and often with terrible losses. In my opinion DC3 gets this exactly right. You have to make an educated guess about the chances of success of any given battle, and even a seasoned player will sometimes get it badly wrong! "


quote:

simply


I agree with you on this. The combat in this game is perfect. It is about force multipliers, using armour in the right spots and planning your advance. As you play you will learn what seems to be required to win your attacks. Early on 2 German infantry divisions will almost always take the hex from a single Russian unit. Every now and then they might not so if is a critical attack you will need to commit mor resources to make it almost a guaranteed win. Adding another hex to the attack will sometimes be much more beneficial than adding 2 more divisions to the attack. The idea that you can find some magic number that is the perfect attack makes a game very boring to me. I WANT to have the possibility of the 300 Spartans holding up a 100,000 to be in a game. I don't want them to hold out 9 times out of 10 but I do want the chance. I think at this scale the combat system is one of the better ones I've seen. I hope they use it on other theaters too.




RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 2:49:56 PM)

I really WANT to like the game. "All the information is present"-- but wrt combat you can't really USE it in any meaningful way. Let's see, I have Pzr Div X with a "power" (well, not really, actually a "stacking value") of 70. Then I have a blitz bonus, a focus bonus, arty bonus, etc. (not including effectiveness, supply, etc) -- but I don't know what any of it MEANS with regard to my units effective "power" for the upcoming combat. And even if I could do it, why would I want try and do "manual" calculations for every single combat? All I can do is try and get 2 or 3:1 odds wrt to "stacking value" and HOPE all the qualitative measures add enough to get a decent result. I'm glad some (most?) of you are having fun with the combat system, but so far I just find it frustrating. I'd rather you just tell me what my "real" power is and just have partial/total FOW on who I'm attacking.



James Ward -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 3:16:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I really WANT to like the game. "All the information is present"-- but wrt combat you can't really USE it in any meaningful way. Let's see, I have Pzr Div X with a "power" (well, not really, actually a "stacking value") of 70. Then I have a blitz bonus, a focus bonus, arty bonus, etc. (not including effectiveness, supply, etc) -- but I don't know what any of it MEANS with regard to my units effective "power" for the upcoming combat. And even if I could do it, why would I want try and do "manual" calculations for every single combat? All I can do is try and get 2 or 3:1 odds wrt to "stacking value" and HOPE all the qualitative measures add enough to get a decent result. I'm glad some (most?) of you are having fun with the combat system, but so far I just find it frustrating. I'd rather you just tell me what my "real" power is and just have partial/total FOW on who I'm attacking.


I think where this game shines is in those unknowns. You may have an idea of how your units will perform and you may have an idea of what you are up against but it really come down to your best guess. Are my two infantry divisions enough to dislodge 4-5 battered enemy units? Are my panzers in good enough condition to assault on their own? Are the enemy fresh units or the ones I have been pushing back for the last few turns?

You will learn as you go, which is a really neat feature. I have completed a few games and in the summary it gives you the number of attacks you performed and how many I won. Each game I seem to get better at winning more of my attacks as I get better at learning my units capabilities and getting better at my 'guesses'. Very few games offer this experience. I really like it.



Philippeatbay -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 3:25:28 PM)

I don't understand why some people seem to think the combat power number isn't displayed anywhere, because it is. Big as life.


[img]http://i.imgur.com/hVK7udc.jpg[/img]


Unlike other Decisive Campaigns games, the number in the yellow circle in that screenshot is the power number and not the stacking value. If you have any doubts about that, click on the tab that shows a unit's number: it lists both of them, and you'll see that the one displayed on the map is power, not stacking.


I won't pretend to be one of the best players, but I find if you just look at the unit pictures and think about it, you can usually get a reasonable feel for what will do what. And that's sort of how it works in real life (tm).

There are hundreds of numbers displayed in the game, and almost all of them are changing constantly. If you worry too much about what each and every one of them means you won't be able to see the forest for the trees. And that's also how it works in real life (tm).





RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 3:59:14 PM)

quote:

In fact it does not take the soft factors into account. Its a rough estimate of the total ammount of equipment and troops.


Per Vic above, that's not really true...basically reflects numbers only.





willgamer -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 4:08:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I really WANT to like the game. "All the information is present"-- but wrt combat you can't really USE it in any meaningful way. Let's see, I have Pzr Div X with a "power" (well, not really, actually a "stacking value") of 70. Then I have a blitz bonus, a focus bonus, arty bonus, etc. (not including effectiveness, supply, etc) -- but I don't know what any of it MEANS with regard to my units effective "power" for the upcoming combat. And even if I could do it, why would I want try and do "manual" calculations for every single combat? All I can do is try and get 2 or 3:1 odds wrt to "stacking value" and HOPE all the qualitative measures add enough to get a decent result. I'm glad some (most?) of you are having fun with the combat system, but so far I just find it frustrating. I'd rather you just tell me what my "real" power is and just have partial/total FOW on who I'm attacking.


I can still quote the yellow card CRT from AH Stalingrad. [X(]

That CRT was copied and improved upon in countless games as the wargamming hobby grew.

Computers have allowed much more sophisticated systems for resolving combat. Barbarossa uses state of the art algorithms to resolve combat in rounds. These number of possible rounds depends upon the number of remaining action points available to the attacking units. During each round, the sub units of each participant are paired up and a combat result is determined. This continues until one side prevails or the attacker runs out of action points. Thus the final combat result is the sum of dozens, perhaps near a hundred, of smaller results.

So the power rating you are seeking simply does not exist!

The numbers provided by Barbarossa give the player at least as much information as real life commanders (actually, quite a bit more). Taken together, they do not yield a simple CRT column, but a much more complex conclusion by the player based upon these values, experience, and intuition.

If that's not your cup of tea, go in peace. But for this old Stalingrad grog, it's heaven in wargamming. [:)]



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 4:11:49 PM)

I feel you! [:)] So my Elite Panzer Mech Warrior Div, 10,000 strong, complete with frickin' lasers on their heads,Darth Guderian leadership bonus, and anti-matter Arty attacks a unit of 10,000 peasants armed with pitchforks in an open field. The combat setup screen basically shows 1:1 odds. Just not my cup of tea I guess.



Philippeatbay -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 4:31:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

quote:

In fact it does not take the soft factors into account. Its a rough estimate of the total ammount of equipment and troops.


Per Vic above, that's not really true...basically reflects numbers only.






You're taking Vic out of proper context. Read his posts and mine a little more closely. I'm talking about how the game defines power as opposed to stacking. They are similar and related but not identical.

Power, as it is currently defined by the game engine, is displayed on units on the map when zoomed in as well as under the unit details tab. To understand the game-defined difference between power and stacking value, both numbers are revealed under the unit detail tab.

Compare power and stacking on a couple of infantry divisions, and then compare them on armored divisions.






ernieschwitz -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 4:40:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I really WANT to like the game. "All the information is present"-- but wrt combat you can't really USE it in any meaningful way. Let's see, I have Pzr Div X with a "power" (well, not really, actually a "stacking value") of 70. Then I have a blitz bonus, a focus bonus, arty bonus, etc. (not including effectiveness, supply, etc) -- but I don't know what any of it MEANS with regard to my units effective "power" for the upcoming combat. And even if I could do it, why would I want try and do "manual" calculations for every single combat? All I can do is try and get 2 or 3:1 odds wrt to "stacking value" and HOPE all the qualitative measures add enough to get a decent result. I'm glad some (most?) of you are having fun with the combat system, but so far I just find it frustrating. I'd rather you just tell me what my "real" power is and just have partial/total FOW on who I'm attacking.


I can still quote the yellow card CRT from AH Stalingrad. [X(]

That CRT was copied and improved upon in countless games as the wargamming hobby grew.

Computers have allowed much more sophisticated systems for resolving combat. Barbarossa uses state of the art algorithms to resolve combat in rounds. These number of possible rounds depends upon the number of remaining action points available to the attacking units. During each round, the sub units of each participant are paired up and a combat result is determined. This continues until one side prevails or the attacker runs out of action points. Thus the final combat result is the sum of dozens, perhaps near a hundred, of smaller results.

So the power rating you are seeking simply does not exist!

The numbers provided by Barbarossa give the player at least as much information as real life commanders (actually, quite a bit more). Taken together, they do not yield a simple CRT column, but a much more complex conclusion by the player based upon these values, experience, and intuition.

If that's not your cup of tea, go in peace. But for this old Stalingrad grog, it's heaven in wargamming. [:)]


+1



ernieschwitz -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 4:42:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I feel you! [:)] So my Elite Panzer Mech Warrior Div, 10,000 strong, complete with frickin' lasers on their heads,Darth Guderian leadership bonus, and anti-matter Arty attacks a unit of 10,000 peasants armed with pitchforks in an open field. The combat setup screen basically shows 1:1 odds. Just not my cup of tea I guess.


Actually no. There is some modifiers for things like experience.... and some unit types, like tanks, (and probably mech warriors) would count as more than 1 pr. Subformation type.



ernieschwitz -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 4:45:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla

The only thing I can say is: Your loss


Basically my sentiment too.



willgamer -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 4:53:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I feel you! [:)] So my Elite Panzer Mech Warrior Div, 10,000 strong, complete with frickin' lasers on their heads,Darth Guderian leadership bonus, and anti-matter Arty attacks a unit of 10,000 peasants armed with pitchforks in an open field. The combat setup screen basically shows 1:1 odds. Just not my cup of tea I guess.


Not 1:1 ODDS!

No such concept in this game; thinking in terms of "odds" will distort your thinking.

10,000 v. 10,000 is indeed 1:1 raw force... the numbers you see in the combat setup screen. You, as commander, must take into account readyness, morale, integrity, experience, support, et. al. to evaluate what you conclude to be the adjusted, real, force levels and hence the likely combat results.

In the example you cited, on a clear day, in the plains, with fresh troops I guarantee you will shred the heathens and advance to Valhalla. [:D]



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 5:16:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I feel you! [:)] So my Elite Panzer Mech Warrior Div, 10,000 strong, complete with frickin' lasers on their heads,Darth Guderian leadership bonus, and anti-matter Arty attacks a unit of 10,000 peasants armed with pitchforks in an open field. The combat setup screen basically shows 1:1 odds. Just not my cup of tea I guess.


Actually no. There is some modifiers for things like experience.... and some unit types, like tanks, (and probably mech warriors) would count as more than 1 pr. Subformation type.

Can anyone else confirm that a unit with more experience will show a greater power rating than a unit with less experience, all other things being equal? I thought Vic made it quite clear that power rating was determined solely by the amount of equipment and troops regardless of experience.



RandomAttack -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 5:45:55 PM)

I'll keep messing around with it and see if I can bend my mind around how combat really works. As George Costanza would say "it's not you, it's me". LOL.



Flaviusx -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 6:02:28 PM)

Pollard, rest assured: conscripts in this game suck.

Also, I find the combat model in this game very predictable. After some practice, you'll have a pretty good idea of what flies and what doesn't. It's all math at bottom for sure, even if not formally presented to you in a CRT.



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 7:55:09 PM)

Does the game allow you to rename your divisions from lets say 41Inf to 41Inf(35) with the number in parenthesis your own personal estimate of the adjusted power rating of the unit?



Moltke71 -> RE: NATO & Power Rating (1/24/2016 8:00:18 PM)

No



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.554688