Why is CV so misleading?

[RedJohn]

Question is title. The CV in almost every instance in this game is an outright fabrication, and the game never shows it's working.

There is a logic, I'm sure, to the many battles on both sides having CVs inflated or cut to 1/12th of their original number, but why does the game not clearly highlight to us the reasons for this? Instead, we need to infer from other contextual clues - I need to check to see the air disruption, to see how many ground elements were disrupted, did I have enough ammo, supply, were my leaders good enough?

Does the terrain affect my ground elements? Perhaps fatigue played a part? There's a thousand different things to check that all can affect the CV - but why am I forced to use guesswork for most of it?

I'm pretty sure this game doesn't even tell you if you pass leader rolls for a specific thing besides supply, right?

This CV misdirection is prevalent throughout the entire game, but perhaps most especially during the first blizzard for both sides. You can be sitting on a level 3 fort as the axis, with well supplied troops at 100 CPP on dense terrain, and have your CVs 1/3rded because... Why? The game won't tell you, you just have to infer by checking a ton of different things that might be the reason why the battle failed.

For the Soviets it's arguably worse, at least you can chalk it up to harsh blizzard for the axis CV reduction. Throughout the entire game, perhaps until 43/44 (though never reached that far as them) your CVs will fluctuate massively during battles both offensively and defensively. You can be sitting on good terrain, with a good leader, on a fort, during blizzard, and still have your CV reduced to 1/10th it's original number as the Axis rout your 3 stack.

There is no feedback as to why this happens, thus there is no way to avoid it unless you're a master of the labyrinthine combat system and know what cog goes where.

I feel like I'm going insane when I think I have a grip of things, just to have offensives peter out and defensive lines broken because the when the CV says 45 it actually meant 0.45 after reduction.

So yeah, I would sincerely appreciate a more transparent results section that tells me what went wrong.

[loki100]

There are two parts to the cv calculation and its impact.

One strand is easy to work out if that floats your boat.

Unit cv is a mathematical relationship based on the elements - see the table in 34.4

23.8.3 gives you the mathematical alterations that then happen before combat starts

8.6.1 (and here look at the Living Manual as the errata is important) then adds some more. One constraint as the release manual had to be under 500 pages (something we failed to achieve) but we couldn't have too much repetition so unfortunately some things are a best guess as to where they should be.

Then 23.8.4 starts to give you the leadership modifications to cv. These are mathematical but probability based.

There is then the impact of all the in-combat dice rolls and tests that drop elements to disrupted or worse.

This, I think is where the real variability kicks in but I fail to see what is the alternative? In general low exp elements miss more shots than high experience and small units can get overwhelmed. Those are the main variable elements.

Others stem from the cv calculation. For the most part a tank is a tank and worth 9 cv. Even in 1941 this is clearly not the case in actual combat, a T34 is better than a BT7, a Pzr III than one of the Czech P38s.

So specifically axis units in winter get hit by 8.6.1 (esp the errata), in effect you can't hold a non-urban hex if the Soviets really want it. As discussed elsewhere the real safety net for the axis play in the first winter is not fortifications its a robust supply net with lots of depots and a fair of redundancy

[RedJohn]

What I'd like ideally is a more transparent system when it comes to those sorts of rolls. Obviously there will always be variability; I'm not hoping to get the combat system revamped, and honestly I have no real issues with 41/42 Soviets getting absolutely blasted sometimes. It's to be expected.

But for things like leader checks, is there any reason why the passing/failing of these checks isn't conveyed to the player? The game already makes the calculations and rolls the dice, so at the risk of sounding stupid; why can't it just show us what checks have been failed and passed in the combat resolution screen?

That way it at least shows the player what has happened to modify the CV as such.

[MarkShot]

A good example of combat reporting is the system used in Matrix/Slitherine's Field of Glory 2. It includes both values, tests, computations, and final result. (and is fully optional if you care to see it)

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

What I'd like ideally is a more transparent system when it comes to those sorts of rolls. Obviously there will always be variability; I'm not hoping to get the combat system revamped, and honestly I have no real issues with 41/42 Soviets getting absolutely blasted sometimes. It's to be expected.

But for things like leader checks, is there any reason why the passing/failing of these checks isn't conveyed to the player? The game already makes the calculations and rolls the dice, so at the risk of sounding stupid; why can't it just show us what checks have been failed and passed in the combat resolution screen?

That way it at least shows the player what has happened to modify the CV as such.

I think some of this is connected to the game engine, and the core of that was put together in the early 2000s when 2by3 first considered something like WiTE. Less than ideal response but there we are. I know that the designers can indeed see that sort of outcome but that is using their testing mode.

I remember doing a set of tests on isolated instances of the same attackers/defenders using WiTW. Tediously I ran it 20 times - so enough for some statistical validity. Then again with different commanders. In the end I came away with a decent feel for how the rolls work out.

There is one way to get the detailed combat log if you want.

Add the switch -bDump to your WiTE2 exe (if this sounds scary then don't do it) and the combat logs get saved and can be captured in a csv file. Now this is what did damage to what (so the stuff you see at level 7 resolution), eg:



Now in a turn of a number of combats, that file is going to be huge, so this is not user-friendly or ideal but does allow you to unpick some of the aggregated information in the combat report.

edit - I remember Dominik addded a cv mode that was based on the average of the leader values in the chain and the net probability of how they would affect the actual cv. I never really liked that as oddly I found it more misleading than accepting what you see is a purely arithmetic process and then that there is a degree of probability to take account of. No idea how easy or otherwise that would be to bring into WiTE2 and I'm not sure it helps.

[MarkShot]

How is that different then the battle CSVs being produced in the beta?

However, it is still abstracted, since it tells you what the output is, and not the inputs.

Thanks.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

How is that different then the battle CSVs being produced in the beta?

However, it is still abstracted, since it tells you what the output is, and not the inputs.

Thanks.

its not, but watching the battle is slow and the information gets lost, this allows you to look over it and set up analyses - I'm not suggesting it as a solution just that its there.

[altipueri]

OT @loki - I bought the game and your 500 page manual in March but still haven't faced up to the task of playing - you say above the living manual errata are important - but for a new player will the physical manual be good enough? (I'm expecting a long cold winter to add the appropriate atmosphere for an east front game)

[xmax]

Could this battle log be added to the battle resolution screen as an additional tab with filters like the logistics screen in the commander's report?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

OT @loki - I bought the game and your 500 page manual in March but still haven't faced up to the task of playing - you say above the living manual errata are important - but for a new player will the physical manual be good enough? (I'm expecting a long cold winter to add the appropriate atmosphere for an east front game)

yes, the changes are marginal so far, its not like with #1 when the fundamentals were getting shifted around between patches.

one handy feature in the Living Manual is every change (whether documenting something we missed or reflecting rules changes) is marked as 'errata', so a search on that term will take you to all the changes since the formal manual - handy for a quick scan.

I suppose a key difference is that when I want to check rules in WiTW I go to the Living Manual, in WiTE2 I still tend to refer to the release manual

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: xmax

Could this battle log be added to the battle resolution screen as an additional tab with filters like the logistics screen in the commander's report?

for a small battle it can be 100s of lines long, for a large one can hit 1,000. Its feasible that the aggregate for a turn is well into the 100,000s of lines.

Its not designed to be used and I suspect would cause massive processing problems. All I've done above is shown how it can be accessed - I personally never would

[EddyBear81]

I wouldn't want the CV calculation to be more transparent. I feel the uncertainty adds to the thrill of the game.

You have to decide based on the information you have.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

...

But for things like leader checks, is there any reason why the passing/failing of these checks isn't conveyed to the player? The game already makes the calculations and rolls the dice, so at the risk of sounding stupid; why can't it just show us what checks have been failed and passed in the combat resolution screen?
...

apols about adding to this but there is a particular issue here that is worth noting.

There is not one roll where leadership influences the cv, there are a mass of them - and this actually links to the 100s of lines of the combat log above.

If we ignore leadership rolls around reserve reactions they affect fundamental things like SU assignment. Those bring in/set aside big chunks of elements and I believe each SU is tested separately till the allocation is used up.

Then almost every combat fire is linked to a leadership roll, there is then a chance that a hit gets downgraded, I think that one keys off element experience and leadership roll. Resupply in combat is another batch of leadership rolls.

So if it was a single test, then Mark is right, the reporting say in Field of Glory is useful, but its not. Its 100s of the damn things depending on the size of the battle, almost every combat interaction involves the hard data of the weapon systems, the relative experience and morale of the elements and a leadership test.

Most of these use the infantry-mech scores but I suspect some draw on the initiative values, possibly some on the admin values (morale mainly affecting post battle recovery).

[Stamb]

Is it possible to create additional tab with the info about leader checks that will display percent of completed/failed rolls?

For example:

Shooting 100 / 1000
Resupplying 90 / 100

We have similar feature for a supply. With an amount of failed checks and penalty value.


In this case players will be able to understand that this time it was bad RNG for them and next attack/defense might be better.

P.S

Wanted to make better example, but i can not post some symbols as my account does not have 10 posts and 7 days after it [:D]

In case of shooting success rate of leader's checks is 10%
In case of resupplying success rate of leader's checks is 90%

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Is it possible to create additional tab with the info about leader checks that will display percent of completed/failed rolls?

For example:

Shooting 100 / 1000
Resupplying 90 / 100

We have similar feature for a supply. With an amount of failed checks and penalty value.


In this case players will be able to understand that this time it was bad RNG for them and next attack/defense might be better.

P.S

Wanted to make better example, but i can not post some symbols as my account does not have 10 posts and 7 days after it [:D]

In case of shooting success rate of leader's checks is 10%
In case of resupplying success rate of leader's checks is 90%

thats an excellent idea - not got a clue how feasible it is but it sidesteps the problem of too much information to make any sense of the effect and gives you a feel for how well the command chain worked.

[James80]

+1

that would be really cool and helpful

[Iam5not8]

The absence of visibility and some uncertainty in the results is one the design option I really appreciate in that game.

It takes you back to the basics of operational command in the uncertain world of warfare, meaning for example :
1) I really need that position or do that breakthrhough, I will try to get a 3:1 odds in manpower with a lot of arty and other support
2) pursuing / attacking many times a unit is the best way to destroy it
3) attacking with tanks in bad terrain, heavy woods, urban... is a bad idea
4) inf is best in defense
5) operational maneuver is a usually a better way than brutal assault
6) battles in densed urban area is a bloodbath (specially in last releases)
7) With no ammo, you will not get far.
9) and so on...

I definitively prefer this uncertainty linked to a certain plausiblity (realism may be too strong for a game), than to precisely monitor each of the many parameters that influence the results.

Than of course, all the above is valid only if the combat engine does not have major flaws.

[Jango32]

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.

Or why initial high CVs just plummet into nothing.

[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.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Jango32

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.

Or why initial high CVs just plummet into nothing.

and there are plenty of attempts to answer the question above.

Some of the reasons are imposed relationships applied at the end of the combat process such as the hit on axis cv in the first winter.

Most come out of the complexity of the combat engine, to understand cv modification you need to understand that. But not only is it complex with potentially a lot of elements in action (even if not all hit) its not linear. By design there are sub-routines that may reward success (if you pass the requisite leadership rolls) and so on.

In the main this is all based on probabilities around the leadership values. The manual has examples of how to work out the % chance of passing a given test, so to jubjub's summary of the main reasons for variation I'd say leadership (& leadership chains).