Displayed CV is way off the real one: please fix

[gradenko2k]

If the CV isn't representative of what you need to know to decide on any given attack or not, why not show something that IS such a representation? If we're expected to check on things like leader stats, TOE status, supply levels and morale levels on top of or instead of the displayed CV, then should those stats be the ones that are readily displayed to the player?

[Joel Billings]

My understanding of CV is that the formula multiplies otherwise calculated CV by the morale and then the experience. So here's the dynamic:

Basic CV-----Experience--------Morale-------Adjusted CV--------Truncated Value Shown
10------------------90---------------90----------10x.9x.9=8.1-----------------8
10------------------70---------------70----------10x.7x.7=4.9-----------------4
10------------------50---------------50----------10*.5*.5=2.5------------------2
10------------------30---------------30----------10*.3*.3=.9-------------------1 (unless depleted, it won't be less than 1).

Morale and Experience can be different, but tend to track fairly closely, so together they have a very big impact on actual CV, and the truncating can be major. Several days ago Pavel added one digit to the CV in the rollover text for friendly units, so you can see whether the CV 1 unit is actually a CV .1 or a CV 1.9.

For those looking for a more "accurate" CV, I do appreciate what you are looking for. I've been through this several times with both Gary and Pavel of the past 2 years. Today Gary mentioned that the items going into the CV on a counter are only those items in the unit (so leaders are not in the calculation, but fatigue, morale, ammo, etc. are). From what I can tell, leaders are not in the pre combat CV calculation but are in the after combat CV calculation, so this is probably the biggest factor that is causing what you are seeing. I do not know if there are technical reasons why the leader ratings are not somehow factored in, assuming I'm understanding things correctly, and/or if this was a design decision to keep leader ratings out of the CVs in the units, or a little of both. Leaders are very important in the game, and it's good to know your leaders, the good ones and the bad ones.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

My understanding of CV is that the formula multiplies otherwise calculated CV by the morale and then the experience. So here's the dynamic:

Basic CV-----Experience--------Morale-------Adjusted CV--------Truncated Value Shown
10------------------90---------------90----------10x.9x.9=8.1-----------------8
10------------------70---------------70----------10x.7x.7=4.9-----------------4
10------------------50---------------50----------10*.5*.5=2.5------------------2
10------------------30---------------30----------10*.3*.3=.9-------------------1 (unless depleted, it won't be less than 1).

Morale and Experience can be different, but tend to track fairly closely, so together they have a very big impact on actual CV, and the truncating can be major. Several days ago Pavel added one digit to the CV in the rollover text for friendly units, so you can see whether the CV 1 unit is actually a CV .1 or a CV 1.9.

For those looking for a more "accurate" CV, I do appreciate what you are looking for. I've been through this several times with both Gary and Pavel of the past 2 years. Today Gary mentioned that the items going into the CV on a counter are only those items in the unit (so leaders are not in the calculation, but fatigue, morale, ammo, etc. are). From what I can tell, leaders are not in the pre combat CV calculation but are in the after combat CV calculation, so this is probably the biggest factor that is causing what you are seeing. I do not know if there are technical reasons why the leader ratings are not somehow factored in, assuming I'm understanding things correctly, and/or if this was a design decision to keep leader ratings out of the CVs in the units, or a little of both. Leaders are very important in the game, and it's good to know your leaders, the good ones and the bad ones.

Yep - exactly Joel!

And the FoW can also influence the actual in combat CV values players see...

BTW, it is also important for all players to notice that final (i.e. after combat) CVs show so called "Land Control CVs" that determine the actual outcome of the battle (i.e. if the attacking side won the control of the HEX or if the defenders succeeded in staying in the HEX)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Toidi]

Joel, thanks a lot for that. I'm afraid that the calculation is not full though: fatigue is also involved.

Also, if your calculations are complete, the CV of a depleted division and a brigade should be generally equal to a CV of division with that brigade merged into it. This is, unfortunately, not the case - quite often the division+brigade has CV of 1 (on hex display, together), whereas after the merge, the CV is 2 (or sometimes 3 if you are lucky). This is especially easy to spot during blizzard... I don't know why it is so, but maybe the basic CV is not that basic...

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: Toidi


if you have 90% chance of having the cv doubled, than well, just multiply the value by 1.9.

Yes, but what if the probability is not 0.9, but 0.5? To represent a unit that half of the times is CV=10 and the other half is CV=20, by using a 15, could be very misleading. In general, to represent a bimodal distribution with a mean has its perils. In your system, imagine the uproar in the forum if 50% of the times, a CV=15 unit is halted by a CV=6 unit. What would we see written here?...”silly”, “it is a joke”, “2 by 3 as usual stopping the Germans”, “Stalinist propaganda”…..

[Toidi]

ORIGINAL: alfonso


Yes, but what if the probability is not 0.9, but 0.5? To represent a unit that half of the times is CV=10 and the other half is CV=20, by using a 15, could be very misleading. In general, to represent a bimodal distribution with a mean has its perils. In your system, imagine the uproar in the forum if 50% of the times, a CV=15 unit is halted by a CV=6 unit. What would we see written here?...”silly”, “it is a joke”, “2 by 3 as usual stopping the Germans”, “Stalinist propaganda”…..

I agree that this may be the issue, though I think less than an issue at the moment [remember that the manual suggest attacking at 3:1 or 4:1 odds. Also, the Russians usually have their CV lowered, so it won't actually be 50%].


Note that in my examples Romanians also got their strength doubled. And it happened (same attack) the turn before too. So I really would like to have the information available.

Anyway, the solution is very simple: display the unmodified CV, but display additionally the modified CV, computed with leadership modifiers. The displayed values can be chosen based on option or by switching, the same way as switching between the movement points and defensive CV.

I believe more information will be highly beneficial to both players and will much improve the game. As it is now, it is misleading for both players and leaves the feeling that the game cheats and does not follow the set rules. Good game does not mislead the players - it gives them the information and leaves the play to their skill, not to the fact whether they believe the false information provided by the game or relying on experience choose to ignore it. Doubling the strength really makes a difference. As such it should be accounted and displayed.

[Encircled]

+ 2 to whatever Baelfin was agreeing to

If you want complete knowledge of your enemies forces, just play chess

[Toidi]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

+ 2 to whatever Baelfin was agreeing to

If you want complete knowledge of your enemies forces, just play chess

I want to have the option to have a bit more knowledge of the enemy attack power. It is a game and saying that my full reckon of enemy forces gives me 100% error of the attack power of the enemy is not correct. I believe the game should provide such information a little bit more accurately. Or at least that my reckon will give me an average attack power, so that it can be both higher and lower. As it is now, where the information given to me was almost always 100% too low, it is not acceptable for me.

As for the game, yes, I am almost frustrated enough to revert to playing chess. I generally do not waste my time writing messages on the forum unless I am enraged. And as I believe game cheats, I am enraged. I like to know the rules; if I know the rules and the rules are not followed by the game, I think it is not fair. And I believe this is the case here.

[Joel Billings]

My example of base CVs of 10 assumed all other factors had come into play before adding in the morale/experience. Yes, a unit fatigued would have less CV then one that was not (not the same straight multiplier though, IIRC).

The rules may be misleading to some extent because we could not print out the incredibly long and complicated formulas that go into making up CV calculations. We tried to capture the main elements in the rules, but there is only so much we can do. Sometimes I have gotten into the code with Gary and after awhile with my head spinning I give up. This is not new to Gary Grigsby games (I remember this back in the 80s), but it's getting ever more complex as the computer can handle so much more. This is what you get in Gary Grigsby games. I'm sorry you are enraged as we were not trying to make the game "cheat".

[Wild]

To the opening poster, i sympathize with your frustration but i think the CV is ok once you get used to it. The real participants in this war did not have an exact knowledge of there counterparts. If anything we probably get to much information displayed.
There should be a considerable amount of Fog of War. It just takes a while to get the feel of things.

[koiosworks]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

+ 2 to whatever Baelfin was agreeing to

If you want complete knowledge of your enemies forces, just play chess

if you would bother to read toidi's well written/logical posts, you would know that he is not complaining about uncertainty or the values being off to reflect recon. He is complaining (and backing with evidence) that the values are wildly off. 2x off is not unusual. To the point of the value diplayed being useless or just outright misinformation. Why bother putting any number on units. Just put a counter of a guy with a gun and guess.... This sounds like something that might be right up your alley based upon your idiotic comment.

[Toidi]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

My example of base CVs of 10 assumed all other factors had come into play before adding in the morale/experience. Yes, a unit fatigued would have less CV then one that was not (not the same straight multiplier though, IIRC).

The rules may be misleading to some extent because we could not print out the incredibly long and complicated formulas that go into making up CV calculations. We tried to capture the main elements in the rules, but there is only so much we can do. Sometimes I have gotten into the code with Gary and after awhile with my head spinning I give up. This is not new to Gary Grigsby games (I remember this back in the 80s), but it's getting ever more complex as the computer can handle so much more. This is what you get in Gary Grigsby games. I'm sorry you are enraged as we were not trying to make the game "cheat".

Thank you for your reply Joel. The only thing I am asking for is to get a little bit better approximation of the final CV in the battle on the counters. It does not seem to be impossible.

I understand that the calculations of CV are complex; not sure whether they are necessarily complex, but that is not me to decide (as I wrote in the suggestions thread, I would most welcome when the battle engine would be changed into that from Steel Panthers, but I understand that it is not going to happen). Still, I believe that a better approximation of the battle cv by the cv displayed on the units is not that difficult to achieve. It is important precisely because of the complexity of the modified CV so it is difficult to predict what will the CV be in the battle. It is not that big problem on offence, as you can be unhappy but you can adjust from one battle to another, but it is a big issue in defense, as if you see low values on the counters you falsely assume that the opponent needs at least 2:1 to attack. Sure, I can multiply them by myself, than I can multiply the CV of the defending units by 0.7, but I think that it should not be necessary to do that - I should be getting information like that from game itself, and much more accurate than my simple rules. I fully acknowledge that it is impossible to give exact modified CV, but I would like to get the value which would be sort of average, from where the chances to depart up and down would be more or less equal. As it is now, the chances, at least for the Axis attackers CV, are really one way wrong and pretty systematic.

[gradenko2k]

ORIGINAL: Encircled
+ 2 to whatever Baelfin was agreeing to

If you want complete knowledge of your enemies forces, just play chess

This is ridiculous and hyperbolic. Simply being able to see all of the factors that go into your CV calculation certainly wouldn't reduce the game to knight-takes-pawn simplicity, especially if it's only for your on forces, or limited to just what you can see of the enemy's forces (which wouldn't be much).

I mean, simple aggregation of the numbers into one window itself would be rather useful intelligence coup, and telling the player "Your CV may be as high as xx, or as low as yy, based on the checkboxes you've ticked" would still leave plenty of room for uncertainty. At worst, you'd still know less than someone trying the Battle for Moscow boardgame.

[darbycmcd]

Honestly, this just seems like the biggest waste of time complaint yet. Look, the number you see is a baseline. It goes up or down based on a variety of checks and circumstances, leadership, supply, disruption, etc. so know your forces, know your enemy, learn something about military operations, and read the manual. personally i like that i have to actually think about these things rather than just do a number comparison. sort of like... well a military planner.

[alfonso]

I think Toidi is not complaining about lack of precision, but about lack of accuracy. It this is a bug, it should be corrected. And if it is true that during the whole war the Germans more than 90% of the time get their CVs doubled, the displayed values should be changed (as they are during Blizzard). If it is true…

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Toidi
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.

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.

ORIGINAL: Toidi
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.

The unfortunately have their ratings tatooed in, a player doesn't have to develop a feel for the qualities of their leaders, and can always tell the differences. A curder rerpesention of these numbers by just words (excellent, very good, good, average, poor) would do a lot better, and add some sort of human "FOW".

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).

Because:

ORIGINAL: Toidi
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.

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.

ORIGINAL: Toidi
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.

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.

[Toidi]

ORIGINAL: janh


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.

[karonagames]

@Toidi. I totally empathise with much of what you say, and at several points in testing I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall, but at the end of the day, the game is called "Gary Grigsby's War in the East" and some of the key principles that Gary likes to see in his games is a high degree of variance and uncertainty. I don't play WITP, but I understand that the variance in the Pearl Harbor attacks was quite significant in terms of the amount of sinkings that could occur.

Because I wanted to experience all the other benefits that the game provides, I had to learn to live with the variance and learn to interpret what the numbers say, but what Gary thinks they mean.
No general has ever been able to guarantee a victory and historically there are many examples of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, and Gary likes to make sure we share this experience! The experience is the same for both sides.

[jwduquette1]

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.

+1

I like the current system just fine. I like it considerably better than the traditional cardboard counter days of knowing precise attack or defense values for a given unit. It's all part of the games FOW or the "friction" of war if you like. It takes a bit to get used to what CV represents and how to use it. But I can glean a fair bit of Intel and plan attacks, defense and maneuver according to what CV values I see displayed on unit counters.

One might argue about some of the various game modifiers and randomization entailed in deriving a final combat value. But IMHO these should be picked apart on a case-by-case basis to determine if:

A) A particular randomization algorithim is working as the designer intended?
B) Does a specific randomizer that is WAD require any reassessment or tweaking on the part of the designers in light of extensive public play testing of the system?

[janh]

The way I play I try to mimic what I would have done for example in position of, say, Halder (just an example, don't take it litterally): I know Guderian has performed very well in the past campaigns, has shown good judgment and kept a good eye on keeping his units ready and supplied. He organized replacement requests properly, not asking for too much or too little. He didn't hesitate to take chances, but seemed not to be overly risky -- or perhaps luck was just with him in the past and his successes could have been utterly stupid moves under less lucky circumstances. Anyway, he is "excellent" in some areas, but other generals are so too. I don't know whether he is better than Hoth, or just luckier in the past (i.e. I don't know whether one is 8 and the other 9, or other way around).

Now I have a combat formation, who I know has gone thru a number of campaigns since Poland and has performed very well -- whether due to weak enemies, or fortuitous circumstances, or just skill and valor, who knows -- but the rumor is that this division can do well. Most part of the men went thru regular Army training in the past and served for a long time, so surely the are very good (tattooed into accurate EXP values). The division has a number of tanks of certain types, men, guns, allowing me to make some "quality assessment" of the toys. I can ask for the supply stats, and ammo or fuel, to see combat readiness. A value tells me the men are tired (or again a tattooed, accurate number -- hell, I feel 20% tired now this afternoon...) and a number of vehicle are in need of repairs. So I put whom I feel is a good leader in position of a good division, and can be reasonably confident it can hold its own against a similarly trained and equipped Soviet Guards unit. Or know that I can beat a less well trained and equipped unit in even terrain and favorable weather. But I only will know for sure after trying this unit, and I will develop some sense for how much I can ask for such a unit over time playing this game.

Sounds like a reasonable representation of what a contemporary or modern commander is facing. Probably today Armies go thru extensive training camps and evaluations, and at least within the same army a good quantitative measure has been developed by TRADOC etc. to establish the value of units. But how much prediction does all this allow even today without trying new units and new equipment in a real combat environment?

ORIGINAL: Toidi
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.

Well, I can't either. Because with I-Go-U-Go there is no such thing as actively defending. I-U may be nice for a simpler, more game-like play, but you cannot react to shifts of forces by your opponent as you will be the non-phasing player at that point (btw, adding a replay function would then almost be like turning back to simultaneous movement execution). You can try to outguess him and place your units in the most probably routes of approach, put units on reserve to support, but that's about it. Things like real meeting engagements, quick reactions to breakthrus, or quick short-range repositioning into routes of approach or counterattacks (like "CAP intercepts") are not an option yet.

With high-MP mobile units, he likely won't hit anyways were you last spotted large concentrations and were allowed to make direct contact for reading his CV. In WitP this shortcoming (from good old PacWar) for the fast-movement type of units, i.e. planes and ships, was nicely solved by the reaction moves.