Estimating distance in CM

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all,

I think one thing that takes a few games to get used to is estimating distances for effective use of your units. This is a byproduct of there being no obvious terrain distances being on map (i.e. hexes or some other type of grid system). We know this really bothered some of the old guard at first, and some still gripe about it now, but it is the better way to play for a variety of reasons, including realism.

I found myself typing up something about estimating distances for the Hell of it after one of our newer posters got me thinking about it, so instead of putting it in the unrelated thread I thought I would put it here...

You'll get the hang of it estimating distances quickly. First, think in terms of tiles for large and general calculations. Each terrain tile is 20m on a side. Then look at the units ranges and roughly get an idea of how many tiles each is effective range wise. For example, 100m = 5 tiles. The third thing is to then use the LOS/Targeting tools to figure out exact distances when you are within your unit's rough area of effectiveness. Using the Targeting tool also gives you FP ratings which help aid you in understanding the relationship between distance and effective fire.

The first thing I do is generally set in my mind roughly how big the battlefield is. You can do this easily using the LOS tool from any of your units since there is feedback in meters. Once I have a good understanding about the size of the map I am fine because the rest is the same for any battle.

Now you take this rough understanding of the battlefield dimensions and mentally divide it up into chunks. This gives you an understanding about where your units will be effective and not. Here is a rough scale I use by intuition (tiles = 20 meters each remember):

Squad = 5-10 tiles

AT Team = 3-8 tiles

Team MGs = 20-40 tiles

Vehicle MGs = 10-20 tiles depending on weapon

Team Guns = full map or 100+ tiles

Tanks = full map or 200 tiles

Now combine this with your understanding of the map as a whole. Say the map is 1000m deep (50 tiles). I know that all my big stuff can hit anything it can see so I don't worry about them. My MGs can hit stuff about 1/2 the map away, and therefore are probably in effective range for the entire game, so I don't worry about them either. My smaller stuff can only hit about 1/5th or less of the map from their curent location. So this quick assesment has left me only concerned (big picture wise) about distances for my small arms units, which I then use intuitive tile counts and exact info from the LOS/Targeting tools to effectively place them.

All of the above might sound complicated, but it really isn't. I am just trying to put into words what I do by gut instinct. Up until now I didn't even know I was doing all this, but it turns out I really have a system going on in my head. hehe... and I just thought I was naturally smart

Anyhoo, hope you enjoyed! I'm interested to know how other people keep a sense of distance while commanding their units.

Steve

[Lorak]

Good article Steve.

I guess I based my ranges on the first few games I played. After a game or two you learn pretty quick how effective your units are over distance. So I follow your pattern (without counting tiles). I just eyeball the distance between the target and where i'm at. Move my units into what i feel is a good range and then use the LOS/Target lines to make small adjustments.

starting to ramble now... so i'm out.

Lorak

------------------

-------------------------

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. Without my rifle I am useless. Without me, my rifle is useless...

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

[sbg2112]

Thanks for the info.

Now, why wouldn't this be in the manual? I guess it revolves around "gamey-ness", but I think what you've described will be very useful to beginners -- I've been convinced for a long time that learning a new game is all about learning a sense of scale.

Personally, I don't think this info is gamey; it's not something that can be used to exploit the game or the AI, etc. It's all in the presentation -- heck, all you really have to do is mention that terrain tiles are 20 meters on a side (perhaps in the section covering the editor), and people can take it from there.

Or you could avoid mentioning it altogether, which would give those of us clever enough to measure a tile with the LOS tool a slight advantage.

[This message has been edited by sbg2112 (edited 03-04-2000).]

[Guest Bobb]

Early on, fiddling with the LOS tool, then experence in long range hits from the bigger weapons adds up to a feel for what is a working distance for different units. Slow attrition from small arms at long range during advance or manuevering is worth minimising and certainly closer ranges no less. Cover and support become supreme in bringing the often decisive arm of the ground pounders into effective range and with adequate help to prevail.

More than the fine details of weapon range, I look to how far the GI can run without becoming ineffective through exhaustion. I have not determined the limits with any precision, but I tend to run em and walk em in 100 to 150 meter sections. Those carrying heavy items just have to get there the best they can.

As far as infantry is concerned, I eventually want to get them on top of their opponents, who have been compromised in number, morale, and capability by attrition, multiple threats, and supporting fire. This cuts out the need for much heavy calculating except for machine guns.

Generally the battle turns on freeing up armored components from competition. Or bringing them to bear inspite of competition, so that their HE can provide the infantry with a suitable cud to chew. At least in the Demo scnearios. Cover seems to be more important than issues of distance.

In CE AI armor seem to be more effective than my units. I have to scheme and strain to arrive at favorable results, while the AI seems to only have to stand toe to toe and blast me into inert junk. At first I supposed the AI was bringing Shermans into effective range before exposing them and my Stuggs suffered. Then playing the other way, I lost Shermans in droves as Stuggs could bring their main gun to bear with better speed and effect than my Ronsons could regardless of the Stuggs limited traverse or proximity. No proving statistical studies, just bloody experences. I have gained a great appreciation of the uses of Bazookas and Panzerfausts etc. That is one issue in which range does figure in bold type. Long live the LOS tool.

[Fionn]

Bobb,

I see what you're saying about the StuGs but I'll tell you one thing. The reason the AI commands StuGs better than you is because it commands them more within their capabilities than you do.

I lost a Hetzer just yesterday to a British tank because I exposed my Hetzer's flank to it in a movement since I wasn't bearing the limited traverse etc into account.

I'm willing to bet that if you REALLY examined it you'd see that the AI placed its StuGs more intelligently than you did when you commanded them. See it places them were they can engage while stationary and generally sets up some really good cross-fires.

The AI is probably better than most players at fighting within the constraints imposed by its unit's special characteristics and thus it seems to sometimes gain a "bonus" when commanding them. This isn't so. It just doesn't make stupid mistakes like we do ( I lost something like 8 Shermans to a single Hetzer in a single game once so I know how well the AI can command these turettless vehicles).

[Guest Big Time Software]

sbg2112, I also don't think this is gamey. When you think about it, military maps are all broken up into grids (well, at least ones for artillery purposes). So while CM doesn't have an obvious grid, there is a semi noticable one due to the tiles. It simply gives you a quick way to guess about distance without actually counting.

As Bobb said, after a few games you figure out the effectiveness of each type of unit and apply that to the understanding of CM's spatial relations. Not only movement wise (i.e. how long it takes to move a platoon from A to B through x terrain), but also in regards to effective lethality. I can't tell you how long it took me to realize that having my MGs open up at 1000m was a stupid waste of ammo more often than not. I now wait until about 500m or so unless I see some good chance to screw up the advance and hit 'em with artillery far out from my MRL.

Fionn is right. I tend to move my turretless tanks around too much, thus getting them into potential flank shot situations. I am still learning how to do this effectively, and as Moon can tell you I am learning pretty fast

Steve

[Guest Bobb]

Fionn and Steve, the AI's abiilty to figure the odds and use its units has its ups and downs. I was exercising the Stuggs in CE today in a mirroring a positional thing I started doing with the Shermans. I placed them far left and ran them up to the high ground just below the woods facing to the center. As they went I dropped off a HMG to give flank protection for the Church objective and carried two squads of C platoon and another HMG to provide flank protection for the Stuggs from the woods on their left as they look inward at the Amis heading for the Church. A few cracks between the trees ahead also give them a shot or two at stuff beyond. Shermans have to come after the stuggs and do so at a disadvantage. Took out all 5 in the space of about 40 to 60 meters. They were sitting there in a circle. This cost me only one Stugg late into the game. So the bottom line is the Stuggs have a long period of shooting up the enemy squads in front of them very much dropping the pressure on the guys hiding in the church and generally take on the Shermans one at a time. The early Shermans usually take it in the side and later ones in the nose. These sometimes do get a telling shot in. Even then, the dead Stugg has not been wasted in dying early before banging up some infantry.

This has worked for the Shermans too running up on their left.

Another ploy made possible by knowing that the Germans do not show up for a while, is to fast forward the Shermans into hiding behind the several buildings along the lateral road with infantry on board. Hide the infantry in the houses, angle out targets from behind the houses with the tanks including the Stuggs and I usually come out very well with a Sherman or 3 over all dead Stuggs. One risk with that is the Panzerfauster slipping up into range. Probably a good idea to back up after the Stuggs are gone. Better take a Bazooka or two up with you. These guys suplement the tanks very nicely.

A factor pychological in nature is the player's taking his successes as a matter of due course and losses as a matter of personaly directed, inordinate and unjustified actions of the gods of AI etc.

A good exercise is to flip a penny 100 times recording the results. While the results come out pretty close to 50 50 in the end, one is almost bound to see runs of 6 or 7 or so straight heads or tails, and several of lesser character. If you are toe to toe with some AFVs and collect one of these runs against you, the feeling is obvious, "That damned AI has to be cheating! No way could that happen, and Steve etc is lying when he says your chances are 50 50 or whatever in that situation!". If the situation is reversed, of course it is merely your fine, trained troops and your just due for perfectly commanding them. Such are the ways - - -

Add to such tricks of chance, the AI's keen sense of splitting hairs of terrain, position, and capability over the fuzzy logic in our own heads and you better do some upgraded figuring of your own.

[Fionn]

Bobb,

And one thing to bear in mind is that this "ploy" you've come up with is scenario specific. Also remember that the AI plays that scenario with NO memory of all the previous plays of that scenario so each time it sees that scenario it must calculate, for itself, the best places to put the StuGs.

You figured out the best places over the course of 10 or so games probably .

Kinda backs up my point that the AI is no slouch of a tank commander.

[howardb]

Howcome you've decided to use the metric system ? Don't get me wrong here it's excellent that you do

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think anybody that uses measurements in their day to day lives, and is not pigheaded loyal to tradition , will say that the metric system is the way to go. Well, at least we say that and it is why CM is largely metric.

It is also interesting to note that the US armed forces uses the metric system quite a lot and has for as long as I can see. You see in training manuals references to meters more often than yards for example. And what did the Shermans have? 75 MILIMETER guns. Of course this was not consistant as the US had 45 caliber ammo and did not use metric liquid measurements.

Steve

[Guest Bobb]

As 100 meters misses 100 yards only by being fatter by 9 yards more, that does not really materially screw up using the two interchangeably for most practical purposes of handling troops. So they have to run 9 yards more than usual in the 100, heck they took that long to slow down to a stop anyway. Yeah, at a klick it amounts to 93 yards. But as players we ain't eyeballing it that close anyway. Antitank rockets require a little more care maybe, but not much.

Fionn, you bet your whatever it is a ploy and that is what I called it. There is no substitute for the experence of a first play of a scenario. All the rest are "studies". Enagaging ones often, but studies no less. I did fairly well in playing the scenarios, but you can bet anything important as you will or no, that I was a hell of a lot more cautious.

And as for the studies, I don't think one can push the "lessons" gained in such studies far at all. The main lesson is that with accurate intell you may (not will) come out better. The best thing from them is to improve one's feel for recognising situations and one's handling of them. That feel has to be kept on a short leash as moves so inspired can run into altogether different circumstances than appears at first glance.

[spider]

whats the largest map size that will be implemented in the final cm going to be?

------------------

This is my rifle,

this is my gun.

This ones for killing, this ones a tasty alternative to turkey at christmas.....