How much is learned?

[Maakt Droog]

I think that there is a lot of skill that carries a player from "very good" to "excellent" (at least, I certainly hope there is!! :cheeky:). It strikes me that innate ability helps make that transition quicker and more sustainable.

Pretty much all of what seems to me to make the difference between crack and elite has been mentioned. The biggies being: ability to read terrain, understanding match-ups/game mechanics, and developing enough of a plan to fit those reads.

The other biggun being the ability to read the opponent -- not necessarily what his "plan" is but more what's he got where and then responding accordingly. I don't think getting inside the opponent's head to anticipate his next moves is as critical as just accurately reading his force mix and applying the right tool for the job. Catching someone "off balance" is sexier, but solid and consistent play -- certainly at an elite level -- can't depend on that.

On top of these, the one element that really hits me as critical is positioning -- assuming a good read of the terrain. I think that timing is also very, very important, but that good positioning can make up for bad timing. More and more, the game appears to me to focus heavily on getting into the right position. Even if you manage to do it late and with heavier casualties/losses then if you'd done it earlier, being in the right spot with that that one squad, antitank team, tank or gun will work miracles.

[Ratzki]

So, it looks like most of us know what it is that makes some of the best,.... well, the BEST. I know that a few of the above posts touched on this, but what do you feel is the one(or maybe two) things that you could improve on that would make you a much stronger opponent?
I feel that on the infantry side of the game, I feel stronger then I do with handling armour. I would very much like to get my artillery to work a little better. I can get the stuff to land where I want, but the close co-ordination with advancing my infantry under smoke or behind a barrage sometimes leaves my men stranded in open ground. With armour, jsut pick a skill, and I need work on it. Most of the time, I am more of a herdsman, then a commander. Sometimes things work out and sometimes not, most of the time it is not my good playing that wins the battle as far as armour is concerned. Thank goodness for infantry. On the other hand, I don't think that Patton or Wellington commanded the battle with a 3 year old sitting on his knee trying to push a milk-soaked cornflake into his ear.

[Kelen]

Having a plan of any type is a definate, even if that plan doesn't last beyond first contact.

The ability to both 'act' i.e. to make decisions with a clear objective in mind as to what you want to do, and 'react' i.e. amend your plan to take into account what your oppoent is doing.

However if your look back at those heralded as 'great' commanders in history they tended to excell at one of these but rarely both, for example Napolean was very much an aggresive attacking general, i.e. his plan for the battle was established before the battle and he forced his opponents to react to what he was doing rather than the other way round, where as Wellington was very much the defensive general, i.e. he would let his opponent come to him and after he'd established what they were trying to do he would react accordingly and effectively.

This was why Waterloo was such a close run thing as the two opposing doctrines came head to head, (that and Napoean was actually in 'command' for most of the battle).

As for what I would do better, understand how to use Infantry properly in CMAK, (still struggling!!)

[McEvilly]

What makes me crazy is trying to translate actions from real life to the game.Trying to figure how much ground a unit can cover in 60 seconds, and trying to read the game terrain. But I do enjoy it so.