Please explain the CV options in start menu

[VigaBrand]

Better CV will be (for me).

720 normal CV
684 CV (after 5% lost due Fatigue).
This should be on the Counter. The other values are random. And attacker die roll should not be count! This is important, because it changed the defensive values, too and it didn't happend, if you defend.

In your example:
experience and moral:
Propability that you double on one is 3/4 = 75% (right?), that nothing happens is 1/4 * 3/4 = 3/16 = 18,75% and 1/16=6,25% that your cv will be halved.
You now had results: your cv is 171 (probability is 1/256), you cv is half 342 (probability is 6/256), you cv is 684 (no change, probability 9/256+6/64), 1368 (double, 18/64) and your cv will be 2736 (4 times, probability 9/16).
This means 56,25% that you will have 2736 CV and 28% that you will have 1368 CV. This means 84,375% that you will have 2736 CV or 1368 CV.
You had 1268 CV. (by the way, you went wrong there with 0.75 multiplier instead of 0.95).

So my suggestion is, give the cv*fatigue multiplier as CV on the counter. Than you know what could happen.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

ORIGINAL: Wheat

I love this too. What really is the combat value of these three surrounded Russian infantry divisions? 3 or 53? Good grief!!!!!!

Btw, this is not the battle shown in the previous post.

The first number is the estimated CV. The equals sign means you have imperfect detection on them. I'm not sure what the second number is. If you hover over the unit in recon mode, you will get a readout on the units that includes estimated CV and supply path, which will give you an idea of how well-supplied they are. A -1 supply path means they are isolated. Which doesn't mean they don't have supplies. Go to the combat report map mode and you can see if the enemy dropped supplies to them. The Russians have an enormous number of heavy bombers that they don't dare use for bombing (at least in daylight) and so they might as well deliver supplies to isolated units during Barbarossa. Also, cities produce small amounts of supplies, so a couple of divisions in a city should be able to fight on for quite some time, giving the Germans a royal pain in the butt. Lining up a couple of infantry corps and doing a deliberate attack is usually the best solution.

No, the firts value is the attacking CV. The second value is the defending CV. If they are separated by - instead of = then it means attacking CV and MP left.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand

Better CV will be (for me).

720 normal CV
684 CV (after 5% lost due Fatigue).
This should be on the Counter. The other values are random. And attacker die roll should not be count! This is important, because it changed the defensive values, too and it didn't happend, if you defend.

In your example:
experience and moral:
Propability that you double on one is 3/4 = 75% (right?), that nothing happens is 1/4 * 3/4 = 3/16 = 18,75% and 1/16=6,25% that your cv will be halved.
You now had results: your cv is 171 (probability is 1/256), you cv is half 342 (probability is 6/256), you cv is 684 (no change, probability 9/256+6/64), 1368 (double, 18/64) and your cv will be 2736 (4 times, probability 9/16).
This means 56,25% that you will have 2736 CV and 28% that you will have 1368 CV. This means 84,375% that you will have 2736 CV or 1368 CV.
You had 1268 CV. (by the way, you went wrong there with 0.75 multiplier instead of 0.95).

So my suggestion is, give the cv*fatigue multiplier as CV on the counter. Than you know what could happen.

Maybe I made a mistake with fatigue. But I still thing using expected value is better than completely ignoring random factors.

If you have base value of 10, 50% chance to double it, and 25% chance to halve it, then expected value is 0.5*20+0.25*10+0.25*5=10+2.5+1.25=13.75. Random value calculated in a lot of rolls (and CV of all units involved in a fight depends on hundreds of rolls) usually floats somewhere around that expected value, though in rare cases it will of course differ a lot. Expected value is much more accurate than just pure base value. A unit with the same base value but just 25% chance to double it, and 56.25% chance to halve it will have expected value of 0.25*20+0.1875*10+56.25*5=5+1.875+2.8125=9.6875. So one unit would have a value of 14, and the other of 10, instead of both units having a value of 10. This is much more accurate assessment, and the whole purpose of "better CV" mode.

[VigaBrand]

More questions.
For the 240 rifles squads would there be a dice rolled for moral or for each squad? (240 times)
I understand your point, maybe I had a "feeling" for the old cv numbers and now it will be hard, to teach me a new one.

[DorianGray]

After reading thread, became painfully aware of just how meaningless printed counter CV values really are.

In the majority of traditional games, the unit CVs are fairly static and the RNG is more confined to the combat results table (CRT).

However, in the case of WarInTheEast, not only is there a CRT, but extreme randomization of the final CV used.

Taking morval's example above with a calculated CV range of 1 to 1766, yet depicting the CV on a counter as 42 ??? Somehow a player is supposed to know that a combat value of '42' correlates to a RNG in the range of '1' to '1766'?

I would hope, at the least, that there is some a real statistical bell curve in the resulting CV distribution. Otherwise a value of '42' is even more meaningless.

(after thinking about this some more, I do not know how it would be possible for '42' to be indicative of any kind of normal distribution for an inclusive range of [1, 1766] possible combat values)

I can see that as a source of frustration for a lot of players. Bad information is insidious when it looks so much like good information.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: DorianGray

After reading thread, became painfully aware of just how meaningless printed counter CV values really are.

In the majority of traditional games, the unit CVs are fairly static and the RNG is more confined to the combat results table (CRT).

However, in the case of WarInTheEast, not only is there a CRT, but extreme randomization of the final CV used.

Taking morval's example above with a calculated CV range of 1 to 1766, yet depicting the CV on a counter as 42 ??? Somehow a player is supposed to know that a combat value of '42' correlates to a RNG in the range of '1' to '1766'?

I would hope, at the least, that there is some a real statistical bell curve in the resulting CV distribution. Otherwise a value of '42' is even more meaningless.

(after thinking about this some more, I do not know how it would be possible for '42' to be indicative of any kind of normal distribution for an inclusive range of [1, 1766] possible combat values)

I can see that as a source of frustration for a lot of players. Bad information is insidious when it looks so much like good information.

The unit CV numbers only reflect a units currant ability and its a straight x10 multiplier. When they attack or defend other factors such as terrain, weather etc now also come into play gererating the battles initial CV. When the combat is complete battle losses determine modified CV which it turn determines the winner/losser of the battle.

It's not as bad or as confusing as you are portraying it. Could I suggest you read section 15.6 to 15.8 in the New manual as it might clear thing up somewhat.