As a defender it doesn't matter to know CVs of your opponent (relative to yours) as you see only the end of his phase while he is static. He'll rearrange during his next phase, and you cannot react to that as there is no type of command for the defending, non-phasing phase out of initiative to dynamically adjust even within a small movement radius. The only thing is to put rearward element on Reserve status.
I do not understand how can you defend if you have no idea of the strength of the enemy. I can't do that. I do take into account all the movement of the armies, I know there may be some troops I don't know about, but, those which are standing next to me, I do account for. As such, I do plan my defense based on what I know. And if the guy says 4 and my defensive stack has cv 4, I think that it is fine. Whereas it is not fine, and it is not a single case. As such I want that the guy standing next to me has cv of 8, and not got cv of 4, as this is the cv in battle most likely I will experience.
I fully appreciate the uncertainty, as such I do not mind that from time to time the guy will have cv of 8 and sometimes cv of 2 if I think it is 4. However, if almost always the guy advertised as 4 has cv of 8 in battle, I consider this wrong.
However, adding their effect as average dice rols to the CV could be more misleading than CV. If I had to design it, I would probably put number of men, AFV and guns on the counters. As a player, you should have to get a feel for the moral and readiness of your units from looking at them, and sort of "by combat experience" (thru playing the game).
As the cv is very complex, it is impossible to play this game based on the factors you explained. If you can do, congratulations. I can't. Knowing how much time I spent playing the game, if I can't many people will not be able to do that either. Good game is not about having a feel on the game mechanics gained by playing 1000 hours. For a good game rules should be clear. The fun is about making right choices based on the information available; the information may be given with some uncertainty, but should be on average close to the correct one. This is not the case now.
Every player is in the same boat here. If the formulas are not published, everyone has to make his own experiences and master the game. I interpret a lot of the differences between unmodified and modified CV as the fortunes of war. Usually average results ensue, meaning that professional soldiers carry out a routine operation by the book and the result can be roughly predicted. Sometimes, or in war oftentimes, screw-ups occur, be it by human error of even the best general, or worst subordinate misinterpreting orders, weather, a suddenly breaking down vehicle blocking the road for critical minutes, or something else unforeseen. These are all the dice rolls, including leader rolls, and these should not be determined prior to the action, i.e. no modified CV on the counters. Put recon number there for the enemy, or "reconned CV" as it is now. As almost all combat elements are represented in CV (unfortunately not all), this seems to be a sufficiently good approximation instead of putting real asset numbers.
Yes, but there is a lot of difference between defense and offense. Also a lot of difference between Axis and SU. The CV will never be predetermined, but just more accurate for the variation, so you know what to expect. If the displayed cv is systematically wrong, and it seems it is, I believe it should be changed so it is more accurate, on average.
Recon should give you what your eye can see, so to say. Number of men, tanks, guns. Terrain. Set-ups, bunkers, trenches (fort levels). But not the spirit/will to fight/real moral (not NM or unit morale) of the men, although there could we weak indicators for that like measuring desertion rates. And surely you can't see miraculously the "fortunes of war" for the next battle. Ask for the unmodified CV to be improved such that it also accounts for the missing assets, and the artillery in the battle zone that has been spotted. Or the CV to be replace by raw assets numbers. If this is what you are worried about, I understand.
But please don't put accurate, final CVs. Rather abstract the leader values and make the exact ones unaccessible to players; and give us a game setup with randomizable leader stats.
Knowing all the formulas, and exact stats to the digit, would spoil a lot of fun, the uncertainty part, and bring this game a lot closer to simple number crunching and, indeed, chess.
Well, you are very idealistic about that; But I do not want to play roulette, I want to play a strategic game.
Anyway, all I want is to get CV which is more accurate, i.e. centered around the mid-value of what is expected in number of battles. As for the leaders, I would really love to see what leaders with which stats are better, which are worse. And yes, I believe that Russians did know who was in charge of opposing troops and prepare accordingly. This is the knowledge not given in the game. As I am not a great fun of fiddling with formulas, I believe that the importance of the leadership should be reflected in the CV of the units; If the CV is significantly affected, and it seems it is, both players should have a chance to find out. When you attack, it matters relatively little, as you can adjust withing a turn. When you defend, it matters a lot, as you cannot change your troops organisation on the fly, you just see the outcome in the end. So you need to know what for you should prepare. The game at the moment does not give this information, as such, it is very difficult to prepare.
If you cannot defend, partially because you don't have the information you need, it leads to the behaviour the axis players consider almost like cheating, which is withdrawing as far as quick as possible. As in the end you don't know, so you prefer to make a mistake on the safe side. You cannot afford to make too many mistakes, as every mistake you made with setting your defenses is usually punished by an encirclement, smaller or larger. Surely, better information will not make all the players defending in '41 or '42. But I actually wanted to defend; it is difficult in '41, but I see that it is more difficult in '42, also because I am not given the right kind of information about the strength of the opposing forces, thus the preparations I made are inadequate. This is infuriating because, according to broad game mechanics, they should be fine. Therefore, it seems that game is cheating. And sorry, in this game to defend I need to know about the strength of the enemy before they attack, not after. This strength given by the game is systematically wrong, which is the thing I am unhappy about and want to have it changed.
Good game should allow you to believe in the values it gives to you. Now you have to make your own rules based on experience (e.g. I played few times, so now I know that in March '42 I should multiply the displayed enemy strength by 2 when they attack, but actually in Jan '43, this is no longer the case). Such information should be given to you by the game. Otherwise, the information game is giving to you is incorrect and actually it feels that the game cheats and suggest wrong choices to you.