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.