How do you read game maps?

[HarryInk]

I'll leave my own diatribe 'til later, but I'm wondering about the different ways that people go about assessing a terrain at the start of a battle.

I'd say I'm crudely intuitive and sketch big pics for maneuvering before settling down to checking out LOS possibilities, etc. etc. And of course, I'm influenced by what I've read. I tend, of late, to want to penetrate my enemy's line quite deeply so as to chew up his support weapons before turning on whatever he's pushed forward to engage me. This is a result of adding readings on 'blitzkrieg' tactics (which are really too large a scale for CM tactical battles) to AARs like Fionn vs. the Capt (on CMHQ?). Sometimes this works nicely and brings big victories, sometimes it means I over-extend and have to pull my head in quickly.

I was reading a post about tactical bibliography that mentioned another Fionn v. Bill Hardanger (?) AAR: The Suncken Road -- cos it had good stuff on micro terrain ( now that's a new term for me!). And I know a couple of friends yakked over a terrain in an upcoming PBEM I'll be having with one of them and the way that it was reported to me that friend 'A' talked over terrain to 'B' (who I'll play) sounded quite interesting to me cos it was quite a different approach.

*okay, so I ranted. It's late. Sue me!*

So, what do you do when mulling over a terrain before the game starts moving? What's important, and in what hierarchy?

[flamingknives]

I always look at routes across the field, followed by good fire positions for either side (usually wooded hills or large buildings)

[David Chapuis]

I think that you have to read game maps in conjunction with your style of play. I have a very cautious style, based on infantry forward with tanks/guns in support. Then at time of engagement, I tend to fall back as much (and maybe more) than I go forward. However, when I do assualt, I like close quarters engagements, either with German Inf or Allied flamers. I rarely split my forces up evenly, tending to screen one side of the map with as little as possible, and then overload the assaulting side.

So when I look at a map (this goes for ME or attacks), first I try to identify the high ground that I can take and hold where I can see as much of the map as possible. Then I try to find places to hide my support weapons (including AFVs) and look for the best approaches for inf. The best approaches do not always have the best cover (I only play CMBO right now - so that might have to change on Oct 7, when CMBB comes out on retail), but I look for places that have the best chance for my inf to reach the enemy with the fewest casualties. The approaches with the best cover, usually also have the best defenses, so often I look for secondary approaches. For example, I might choose an approach over open ground if I can engage any enemy units with my support units while keeping the danger to the support units at a minimum. To clarify, I just finished as attack PBEM, and I decided my first goal was to secure some woods on the enemies right flank. To do this, I had to charge over 250 m open ground (it had one light building in that great big expanse). I was able to support that charge with a panther and a wespe that was hidden behind a hill (and a 120m mortar battery and some LMG). The hill hid them from 3/4th of the enemy troops - the 3/4th that I wasnt conserned about at that time. (btw, they cleared the woods, and then got plastered by some 105 VT shells - it was an ugly sight).

So that is basically it on my approach to map reading - find high ground I can keep, hide my support weapons, find the best approach. then when I fight, I get a foothold on the enemy side, bring the support weapons forward, and repeat the process. I guess it is fairly simple, but then I am not a grog.

I welcome any criticism

[dieseltaylor]

I find for me it is a little egg and chicken problem - in QB ME's the first considerations are the weather - length of line of sight, and whether your tanks are ubertanks to his , vice versa , or the same.[function of what year normally]Nowing this in advance and roughly the type of terrain influences your force selection.

Having got that straight in my mind then I look for good hiding place or vantage points etc vis a vis his line of approach to the flags and for me to get to the flags.

Knowing the capabilities of your units is crucial to make the most of the terrain and their weapons.

I have played deliberately to kill the enemy and forgo capturing the flags when this seems a most winning approach. I generally overload one flank on the basis the attack always needs to outkill the defense and then I wish to unhinge the defence by attacking along the baseline to the other flank whilst pinning frontally.

All perfectly fine in theory - and reasonably well in practice [apart from my last probe game where I have come horribly unstuck through trees channeling me to only two points to reach to oppo. Very nasty.]

[BigDork]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

...whether your tanks are ubertanks to his , vice versa...

Like your IS-1 against my lowly StuGs???

I typically look at the map and look for good approaches that will provide plenty of cover to move forward with. I try to use hills when possible to block LOS. I don't necessarily always go for the flags. Terrain can be more important and if there is a great position where I can do a lot of damage I'll go for that first.

Of course this is all my theory. I suffer from always rushing too much. Especially in my approach during the first few turns. I need to learn to slow down some and work more on moving forward while using the terrain.

[Beta1]

In MEs I tend to look for his approaches to the objectives and try and dominate them with my support weapons, ideally placed so they can attack from within/close to my setup zone while being out of LOS of his setup. I try to avoid digging in heavily around the flags as thats a sure way to attract artillery. In an ideal world I want to be able to let him advance into a kill zone and cut off retreat and reinforcement eg by preventing infantry moving between cover using HMGs while I can destroy the isolated portion with HE. In BO wherever possible I aim to fight asymetrically, fighting armor with AT guns and infantry AT and infantry with HE chucking armor (helps me to avoind being out gunned/armored). In BB this doesnt work as well due to the lack of infantry AT and the daft rarity of the 57mm AT guns

[flamingknives]

In BB this doesnt work as well due to the lack of infantry AT and the daft rarity of the 57mm AT guns

Wait for CMAK and you will have access to all the 57mm kit your heart desires. In 1944-> at least. 6 or more per battalion for the Brits should knock down the rarity .