Why is CV so misleading?

[GibsonPete]

I prefer the uncertainty of the battle outcome. I remember playing games where it became a more of a math exercise than a game. The occasional unexpected result keeps me thinking and planning.

[MarkShot]

Here is the funny thing ...

Enemy CVs are all fogged up, but there other parts of the game that expose way more than you should known.

Like GG series is one of the few games when processing turns to give you flash (or slower based on scenario size and PC speed) from the other side's perspective.

I think showing the battle line by line data in the AAR screen would be useless without columns and filters. On the other hand, you can do much more of that with Excel or Access. With Access, you can database every battle and post process. 10 millions rows for Access is no big deal.

Although I have better things to do, it is feasible to write a background Access program that automatically adds these to a database and post processes them for later query speed. The reason I think my coding is not worth the trouble. I think the big picture issues of why you won or loss or already visible. I don't think neural net pattern analysis will reveal some deep insight that isn't already apparent.

But appreaciate their availability.

BUT BATTLES NEED A UNIQUE ID DISPLAYED IN ROLL OVERS, CRs, AAR, and CSVs. You current presentation makes the CSVs practically useless.

[jlbhung]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

ORIGINAL: Jango32

Or why initial high CVs just plummet into nothing.

There are two main reasons why CV's plummet.

1. Disrupted, damaged, destroyed elements from combat
2. Fort level reduction

These two are easy to calculate, and usually match up with the before and after values. If there's a discrepancy, it's probably due to numerical inferiority, reduction in ammo on hand, leader rolls etc.

Bread is just asking for a way to find out why units with CVs over 600 during battle can lose to units with 200 or so CV.

I only see this big of a discrepancy in urban combat. A single dug in rifle division can achieve 600 CV, but in combat, it can easily have 80% or more of it's elements disrupted.

Check the amount of causalities + disrupted in a battle first before assuming the drop is from intangible factors.

Occasionally I attempted to work out the reduction in CV from the combat results when playing the game. Drawing from the experience, I concur with jubjub that in many cases the reduction can be explained by the combat loss and fort reduction (within a +100/- 50% range which I think could be accounted for by leader chk success/failure).

However, I found that in a few cases the drop is more drastic than can be explained by the suggested factors. Sometimes the CV dropped nearly 100% to zero, even for combatants at divisional size or larger. I observed that they often happened in cases where the Soviet side was defending and finally retreated, incurring additional significant retreating loss (due to (i) damaged elements turning to loss from retreat; (ii) additional loss imposed on retreating Soviet side during specific period; and (iii) huge additional retreat loss incurred when playing against AI at Morale level >=120).

My guess is that the final CV now shown has taken into account all the retreating loss, and the loss of all fortification due to retreat (a drop from fort level 5 to level 1 can result in 80% loss in CV) . However, I am more interested in the CV at the time of determining the combat result (whether the ratio is bigger than 2:1 for retreat or not), i.e. the CV before incurring retreating loss. At that stage there may even still be some fortification levels left. If my guess is correct, I think showing the defender CV at the time of determining combat result is better, which gives a more accurate reflection of the defender's performance in the battle, without interference from retreating loss.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: jlbhung

...

My guess is that the final CV now shown has taken into account all the retreating loss, and the loss of all fortification due to retreat (a drop from fort level 5 to level 1 can result in 80% loss in CV) . However, I am more interested in the CV at the time of determining the combat result (whether the ratio is bigger than 2:1 for retreat or not), i.e. the CV before incurring retreating loss. At that stage there may even still be some fortification levels left. If my guess is correct, I think showing the defender CV at the time of determining combat result is better, which gives a more accurate reflection of the defender's performance in the battle, without interference from retreating loss.

yes, agree, there is a calculation at the end of the actual combat, usually if that passes the 2-1 test then a series of further losses (incl setting the fortifications to zero) takes place. The shown cv is that combat+retreat value and can be low due to disruptions etc.

I find a good place to see this is, as you say, the AI at 120+. At speed #2, you see the 'real' combat outcome, you then see the escalation (the tactical nukes) if this was a loss and that gives you some idea how the defending cv flowed across the steps

[jlbhung]

Thank you loki for the clarification.

While speed#2 may be useful, I do not have the practice of watching the combats during the AI turn. Moreover, it is also not practicable for the non-playing user in a multiplayer game.

I propose that the final CV and the combat CV ratio shown at the combat result screen should use the CV at the end of the actual combat, without the retreat loss. Or at least show the "actual combat" CV in addtional to the current one. The current practice in my view is less useful, and in some extent could be misleading.