NATO & Power Rating

[Philippeatbay]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

In fact it does not take the soft factors into account. Its a rough estimate of the total ammount of equipment and troops.

Per Vic above, that's not really true...basically reflects numbers only.

You're taking Vic out of proper context. Read his posts and mine a little more closely. I'm talking about how the game defines power as opposed to stacking. They are similar and related but not identical.

Power, as it is currently defined by the game engine, is displayed on units on the map when zoomed in as well as under the unit details tab. To understand the game-defined difference between power and stacking value, both numbers are revealed under the unit detail tab.

Compare power and stacking on a couple of infantry divisions, and then compare them on armored divisions.

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I really WANT to like the game. "All the information is present"-- but wrt combat you can't really USE it in any meaningful way. Let's see, I have Pzr Div X with a "power" (well, not really, actually a "stacking value") of 70. Then I have a blitz bonus, a focus bonus, arty bonus, etc. (not including effectiveness, supply, etc) -- but I don't know what any of it MEANS with regard to my units effective "power" for the upcoming combat. And even if I could do it, why would I want try and do "manual" calculations for every single combat? All I can do is try and get 2 or 3:1 odds wrt to "stacking value" and HOPE all the qualitative measures add enough to get a decent result. I'm glad some (most?) of you are having fun with the combat system, but so far I just find it frustrating. I'd rather you just tell me what my "real" power is and just have partial/total FOW on who I'm attacking.

I can still quote the yellow card CRT from AH Stalingrad. [X(]

That CRT was copied and improved upon in countless games as the wargamming hobby grew.

Computers have allowed much more sophisticated systems for resolving combat. Barbarossa uses state of the art algorithms to resolve combat in rounds. These number of possible rounds depends upon the number of remaining action points available to the attacking units. During each round, the sub units of each participant are paired up and a combat result is determined. This continues until one side prevails or the attacker runs out of action points. Thus the final combat result is the sum of dozens, perhaps near a hundred, of smaller results.

So the power rating you are seeking simply does not exist!

The numbers provided by Barbarossa give the player at least as much information as real life commanders (actually, quite a bit more). Taken together, they do not yield a simple CRT column, but a much more complex conclusion by the player based upon these values, experience, and intuition.

If that's not your cup of tea, go in peace. But for this old Stalingrad grog, it's heaven in wargamming. [:)]

+1

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I feel you! [:)] So my Elite Panzer Mech Warrior Div, 10,000 strong, complete with frickin' lasers on their heads,Darth Guderian leadership bonus, and anti-matter Arty attacks a unit of 10,000 peasants armed with pitchforks in an open field. The combat setup screen basically shows 1:1 odds. Just not my cup of tea I guess.

Actually no. There is some modifiers for things like experience.... and some unit types, like tanks, (and probably mech warriors) would count as more than 1 pr. Subformation type.

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla

The only thing I can say is: Your loss

Basically my sentiment too.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I feel you! [:)] So my Elite Panzer Mech Warrior Div, 10,000 strong, complete with frickin' lasers on their heads,Darth Guderian leadership bonus, and anti-matter Arty attacks a unit of 10,000 peasants armed with pitchforks in an open field. The combat setup screen basically shows 1:1 odds. Just not my cup of tea I guess.

Not 1:1 ODDS!

No such concept in this game; thinking in terms of "odds" will distort your thinking.

10,000 v. 10,000 is indeed 1:1 raw force... the numbers you see in the combat setup screen. You, as commander, must take into account readyness, morale, integrity, experience, support, et. al. to evaluate what you conclude to be the adjusted, real, force levels and hence the likely combat results.

In the example you cited, on a clear day, in the plains, with fresh troops I guarantee you will shred the heathens and advance to Valhalla. [:D]

[Jonathan Pollard]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I feel you! [:)] So my Elite Panzer Mech Warrior Div, 10,000 strong, complete with frickin' lasers on their heads,Darth Guderian leadership bonus, and anti-matter Arty attacks a unit of 10,000 peasants armed with pitchforks in an open field. The combat setup screen basically shows 1:1 odds. Just not my cup of tea I guess.

Actually no. There is some modifiers for things like experience.... and some unit types, like tanks, (and probably mech warriors) would count as more than 1 pr. Subformation type.

Can anyone else confirm that a unit with more experience will show a greater power rating than a unit with less experience, all other things being equal? I thought Vic made it quite clear that power rating was determined solely by the amount of equipment and troops regardless of experience.

[RandomAttack]

I'll keep messing around with it and see if I can bend my mind around how combat really works. As George Costanza would say "it's not you, it's me". LOL.

[Flaviusx]

Pollard, rest assured: conscripts in this game suck.

Also, I find the combat model in this game very predictable. After some practice, you'll have a pretty good idea of what flies and what doesn't. It's all math at bottom for sure, even if not formally presented to you in a CRT.

[Jonathan Pollard]

Does the game allow you to rename your divisions from lets say 41Inf to 41Inf(35) with the number in parenthesis your own personal estimate of the adjusted power rating of the unit?

[Moltke71]

No

[Philippeatbay]

If you include soft factors, the power of most if not all of your units changes every turn.

If you were to rename units to include the power rating, you'd be renaming between one and two hundred units each turn because the names would constantly be out-of-date.

I would have thought that the frustration of trying to keep on people's good side by making the right decisions was Sisyphean enough.

[Moltke71]

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

If you include soft factors, the power of most if not all of your units changes every turn.

If you were to rename units to include the power rating, you'd be renaming between one and two hundred units each turn because the names would constantly be out-of-date.

I would have thought that the frustration of trying to keep on people's good side by making the right decisions was Sisyphean enough.

+1

[VANorm]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Can anyone else confirm that a unit with more experience will show a greater power rating than a unit with less experience, all other things being equal? I thought Vic made it quite clear that power rating was determined solely by the amount of equipment and troops regardless of experience.

The Power Number is an equipment count, adjusted somewhat for equipment effectiveness. Many, if not all soft factors are reflected in the Thermometer, with Supply Status the dot above it.

[Jonathan Pollard]

Even for those who would not care to rename their divisions to aid in keeping track of their actual power, not allowing renaming makes it impossible for the Soviets to designate any of their divisions as Guards divisions.

"The title of the Soviet Guards was first introduced on September 18, 1941 in accordance with the decision of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Stavka Verkhovnogo Glavnokomanduyuschego) and by the order №308 of the People's Commissar of Defense for the distinguished services during the Yelnya Offensive. The 100th, 127th, 153rd and 161st Rifle Divisions were renamed into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Guards Divisions, respectively. The Soviet 316th Rifle Division was renamed to the 8th Guards Rifle Division on November 18, 1941, following the actions of the Panfilovtsy and was given the Panfilovskaya title in honor of its late commander Ivan Panfilov. By December 31, 1941 the 107th, 120th, 64th, 316th, 78th, and 52nd Rifle Divisions had become the 5th through 10th Guards Rifle Divisions.[2]"
wikipedia

[RandomAttack]

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

If you include soft factors, the power of most if not all of your units changes every turn.

EXACTLY! It's changing anyway, we are just making a guesstimate as to what the impact of the soft factors are. Why not just show the approximate impacts?
Time of Fury (that poor flawed game that came soooo close in many areas) got that one thing right. The displayed unit power updated dynamically based on ALL the factors that impacted it's "true" combat power (leader influence, supply, etc.)
I understand if that is a bridge to far for this game, or the designers simply don't want to do it that way. I guess I was just surprised that "all" the factors WEREN'T reflected.

I haven't found any report that indicates the impact of all the "soft factors" on combat. Obviously more is better, but the impact seems to be hidden. Why? Unfortunately, in my experience (and naming no names), games that hide so many factors under the hood often means no one can tell whether they are actually working properly or not. So when I attack a "weak" Soviet Cav Div with 6 Inf Divs and it only takes about 25% casualties and retreats in good order I am naturally skeptical.

[KenchiSulla]

Perhaps the cav. div had a casualty treshold of 25% set? And why wouldn't it retreat in good order?

[Philippeatbay]

In real life(tm) cavalry divisions are supposed to retreat when attacked by significantly superior numbers. They're usually meant to act as a flexible screen, not cannon-fodder that dies in the trenches.

[RandomAttack]

Because I attacked in essentially overwhelming force. And in "real life" many Soviet units didn't just retreat in good order under those conditions during the early days, whole divisions disappeared/ran/vaporized/surrendered/went "poof" as a fighting force. Admittedly I can't attack too many places at that level, but generally it just seems like all I can do is just push the counters around. So I'll take several turns to reduce/eliminate them, but under specific conditions of overwhelming force (and not cities/fortresses/etc), and with all the first turn bonuses, I would expect at least a FEW results to be more decisive.

[wadortch]

Hello
I admit to still being somewhat confused by the combat model and after a lot of gameplay am not as comfortable as Flav is as to its predictability.

Don't want to belabor this but do have a couple of questions that I'd appreciate Vic to answer since there seems to be some confusion between even he and Cameron on this related to the stacking value vs combat power numbers shown in the screenshot (attached)

So:

I have two German units, power rating 68 each, attacking 1 Soviet unit, power rating 63. The stacking point value of the German units is 73 each, that of the Soviet 67 (see the combat display, stacking points 146 vs 67. The display indicates the attack gets a concentric bonus of +5%. First question: +5% related to what?

The screen shot also indicates the German unit is receiving various benefits (HQ power 100%, HQ combat mod, 65%, HQ morale mod, 30%). Second question, same as the first, what are these %'s applied to? For example, would the numbers in the stacking point ratio change at all if the HQ morale mod was 100%?

Related question--does the units posture affect stacking value, power value or both--does the HQ combat mod reflect the blitzkrieg posture combat bonus on offense for example?

Last question. Stacking penalties. How are these applied to offensive and defensive units? The manual says there are penalties and higher casualties associated with "towers of doom" but how that actually works is not clear, especially so for huge stacks of defending units. Some insight into how this actually works would be very helpful information as well. For example, if a defending has a 700 stacking value, how does an attacker begin to assess what kind of power he needs to bring to bear on the hex to win the fight?

I can appreciate the views of all here, some love the uncertainty and complexity of the engine, others want the precision and predictability of the old Avalon Hill games. I agree, that lack of pinpoint precision and number crunching is part of the charm of DC, but some more detailed explanation of how all the moving parts of the combat model (and I have not even raised questions here as to how morale, experience and readiness affect combat) relate to the stacking and power values displayed on the screenshot, even if just in "ballpark" terms is warranted.

[RandomAttack]

+1. I'd really like to know too.