Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

part 3 of 3

Image
Attachments
T38GermanA..part3of3.jpg
T38GermanA..part3of3.jpg (390.18 KiB) Viewed 100 times
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by 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.



WitE Alpha Tester
Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

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...
User avatar
Baelfiin
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:07 pm

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by 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.
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
Farfarer61
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:29 pm

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Farfarer61 »

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

Things that make you go "Hmmm".

Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

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.
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33027
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by 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.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

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
Posts: 6127
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:35 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by JAMiAM »

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
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

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?
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!

User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33027
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Joel Billings »

Also want to throw in that remember many elements have no CV but can have a major impact in combat (i.e. artillery with 0 CV but can disrupt the enemy units, thus negating their CV before the final adjustments are made). We have looked at the CV issues many times during development and I've concluded that although the CVs make one think this is a boardgame with very deterministic values, that there are too many moving pieces that are not accounted for in the CVs and that this is just something you learn through experience with the game. One gets a feel for how things work over time, but there are always surprises.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Also want to throw in that remember many elements have no CV but can have a major impact in combat (i.e. artillery with 0 CV but can disrupt the enemy units, thus negating their CV before the final adjustments are made). We have looked at the CV issues many times during development and I've concluded that although the CVs make one think this is a boardgame with very deterministic values, that there are too many moving pieces that are not accounted for in the CVs and that this is just something you learn through experience with the game. One gets a feel for how things work over time, but there are always surprises.


Thanks! I appreciate that artillery has 0 CV and so on and so forth. Whether it is a good choice, I'm not sure; I would prefer to have the chances to have defensive CV significantly lowered by artillery nearby being displayed, though I understand that this leads to all sorts of troubles. As such, for artillery and other units, it may be good idea to allow making some simulated fights in the turn to get the modified CV, but that is something which would require a lot of changes, so I am not pressing for that.

However, the attacking German CV is almost always doubled. As such, it should be given in display. I agree that one does get a feel in attack and attacking CV adjustment is relatively simple. However, it is much more difficult in defense, as one exactly does not get the 'feel' how things evolve and does not know which units actually usually get double CV and which not necessarily. As such, the displayed attack CV for the defender is very misleading. Also the defensive CV is a bit misleading and a bit too high. I always heard the explanation that CV is so reduced because the forts are reduced, so in the end CV is affected. But this time actually I had a sample where *no forts* were present. As such, this reduction in CV of the defender and increase of CV of the attacker is *not* due to forts. This is built in-game. As such, the attacker CV in cases when it likely to be doubled should be doubled on display (or increased accordingly to the chance of increase), to warn and inform both players (sure, you need good enough reckon for that to see it on enemy unit, but you should see it on yours).

My guess is that this doubling of Axis attack values is due to leadership - as such the chances should be very easy to calculate and the displayed CV should be adjusted or additional value may be displayed. Sure, such adjusted CV is maybe sort of 'maximal' which then can be reduced by air / artillery etc. But that is what we have in defense. While defending, CV is rarely doubled, it happens, but rather rarely, as expected (so it is not boring and 100% predictable). Generally it is lowered.

As such, as most often the defensive values are lower than displayed, those may be adjusted as well. Such an adjustment would just allow to make *both* players a more informed choice; I really would like to have both values in combat sort of being center values for the adjusted combat value. If that is not possible, I would like to have at least the impact of leadership included, i.e. this chances for doubling/ quadrupling/ halving. That is I guess not connected to the battle itself and as such the chances can be calculated and put on counter.

At the moment the CV on the counters are very misleading - as such I believe more work should be put into transferring those 'provisional' values to something better, as the displayed CV is the information players rely on most in making their decisions.
User avatar
invernomuto
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Turin, Italy

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by invernomuto »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Also want to throw in that remember many elements have no CV but can have a major impact in combat (i.e. artillery with 0 CV but can disrupt the enemy units, thus negating their CV before the final adjustments are made). We have looked at the CV issues many times during development and I've concluded that although the CVs make one think this is a boardgame with very deterministic values, that there are too many moving pieces that are not accounted for in the CVs and that this is just something you learn through experience with the game. One gets a feel for how things work over time, but there are always surprises.

Joel,
this lead to another question: do we need unmodified CV on counters?
Wouldn't be more useful to have number of men, guns and AFVs on counters instead of this "magic number" that is influenced by a lot of factors in real combat?
My 2 cents.
Bye.
alfonso
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Palma de Mallorca

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by alfonso »

ORIGINAL: invernomuto


Joel,
this lead to another question: do we need unmodified CV on counters?
Wouldn't be more useful to have number of men, guns and AFVs on counters instead of this "magic number" that is influenced by a lot of factors in real combat?
My 2 cents.
Bye.

invernomuto, you have already that option...




Image
Attachments
Op.jpg
Op.jpg (192.77 KiB) Viewed 100 times
User avatar
Jeffrey H.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca.

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Jeffrey H. »

This is one of the things that did turn me off of the game. Wouldn't it be possible to show a representative value with "average" die rolls for all the modifiers instead of nearly meaningless unmodified values on the unit facings ?
History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson
User avatar
Mentor
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:08 pm

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Mentor »

I like the uncertainty, as commanders did not face opposing units with flags waving indicating their combat strength.  This had to be learned through recon, intel, and probing attacks.  This is all modeled remarkably well in the game system.  I can not go so far as to remove the CV totally from the unit counters however, I need some idea.

The point being made is that there appears to be a systematic error in the CV, in that the German values are consistently being ~doubled.  I tend to agree that this is most likely due to leadership.  If this is the case, then I think it is fine and fits in with the rest of the FOW effects.  Again, leaders did not have their ratings in the various game parameters tattooed on their foreheads.

In my opinion too much knowledge of the game mechanics / formulae ruins the game.  It allows the player to game the game, rather than playing it.
randallw
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by randallw »

If not already mentioned in the thread the CV really isn't a measure of firepower value, but more like the amount of equipment that can force the opponent to retreat, with some equipment having no value in the formula and offensive equipment like tanks having high value.
User avatar
Baelfiin
Posts: 2983
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:07 pm

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Baelfiin »

ORIGINAL: Mentor

I like the uncertainty, as commanders did not face opposing units with flags waving indicating their combat strength.  This had to be learned through recon, intel, and probing attacks.  This is all modeled remarkably well in the game system.  I can not go so far as to remove the CV totally from the unit counters however, I need some idea.


In my opinion too much knowledge of the game mechanics / formulae ruins the game.  It allows the player to game the game, rather than playing it.
+1
"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton
WITE-Beta
WITW-Alpha
The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.
Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

ORIGINAL: Mentor

I like the uncertainty, as commanders did not face opposing units with flags waving indicating their combat strength.  This had to be learned through recon, intel, and probing attacks.  This is all modeled remarkably well in the game system.  I can not go so far as to remove the CV totally from the unit counters however, I need some idea.

The point being made is that there appears to be a systematic error in the CV, in that the German values are consistently being ~doubled.  I tend to agree that this is most likely due to leadership.  If this is the case, then I think it is fine and fits in with the rest of the FOW effects.  Again, leaders did not have their ratings in the various game parameters tattooed on their foreheads.

In my opinion too much knowledge of the game mechanics / formulae ruins the game.  It allows the player to game the game, rather than playing it.


1. It is all fine when you attack. It is not fine when you defend - you cannot do 'probing defense' and change strategy within a turn.

2. Leaders in WitE do have their stats tattooed on their foreheads. And the opposite side surely know who is the leader of the army next to them. As such, as the stats of the leaders are known, I believe it is only fair to have the real attacking CV displayed, not the one before doubling. Otherwise the game does not provide information to the player which should be provided and is misleading.

3. The only way to play this game well is to understand the game mechanics. Otherwise you will keep on loosing and you will have no idea why. The only way to have the issue you mentioned removed is to make the whole game mechanics as open, transparent and understandable as possible.

The issue I have is exactly because of the game mechanics being hidden, which leads to systematic errors and strategic errors. As it is now, I felt like that there are some 'special' rules for German which are not shown leading to doubling their strength in almost every single attack. This is most unfair - as doubling of the strength should be an exception, not the rule. If that is the rule, I have no problem with that but I believe it should be widely known and shown on the counters. Otherwise, the game cheats, as the rules state pretty clearly that you should have at least 2:1 odds to attack [actually the manual suggest that 3:1 or 4:1 is better due to uncertainty], which is completely untrue in those examples.

Good game provides unbiased information to the players to help them make their decisions. If such information is not provided, the game is rather imperfect. I understand that if I have insufficient reckon, I will not find out about those. But the information should be available. As it is now, the game cheats, as the big rules, like attacking on 2:1 odds to be successful are not followed. As such, I believe the counter values should be changed, so it is clear that those units actually do not have the strength displayed, but doubled. This is basic information and not providing it is just wrong.
Toidi
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:55 am

RE: Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

Post by Toidi »

ORIGINAL: randallw

If not already mentioned in the thread the CV really isn't a measure of firepower value, but more like the amount of equipment that can force the opponent to retreat, with some equipment having no value in the formula and offensive equipment like tanks having high value.

That is not true. CV does measure much more than equipment - notably it measures the morale. Additionally, the CV does not change linearly with equipment, i.e. unit at 90% TOE for Russians may have CV of 3, the same unit at 80% may have CV of 2 and at 60% TOE may have CV of 1. As such, there is some magic involved in it (I would be extremely happy if that would be just the equipment, would make the whole game sooooo much easier to play and to understand). Because of that magic in the CV at the moment, it is only fair that the CV displayed is as close to the average modified CV in battle as possible. I understand variation - but the variation should be centered around the value displayed, at least in most cases (surely, in some it is impossible, but if you have values systematically wrong by 100% there is quite a bit room for improvement). Otherwise, I feel that the game cheats big way and does not provide the players the essential information which should be provided.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”