Cheating

[Capt. Pixel]

Originally posted by Marek Tucan
My friend still complains to me that something's taking out his recon troops and he doesn't see it:) KV-1S over the hill:D And a battery of 85mm AAA;)

In a situation like this, I've got to believe that your friend has not bothered to set his reconn's Range value to '0'. If it's set to a range of 1+, he'll usually be seen as soon as he moves into view. If he keeps it set to '0' and moves slowly, through cover, he'll be a lot harder to spot and keep spotted.

After you've been shot at (#), your Range gets reset to something other than '0'. Then it's time to set your range back to '0'.

This is true only for Infantry Scouts (Size=0) (and Squads under certain conditions like making a short movement, through heavy cover assaulting an unescorted, buttoned vehicle). Vehicles are almost always spotted if they move into view. (and often if they're not even moving)

Keep that Infantry Scout's Range at '0' and you can advance right up under his nose without being seen.

('Cheating'? Hmmmm... I don't think so. Just better tactical control of the individual units, I'd say.)

[Capt. Pixel]

So, Gentle Forum Readers, here's a couple of situations to gnaw on. Is it 'Cheating' or is it just a new way to use the flexibility of SPWaW?

(Caveat: I do NOT and have NEVER used any of these 'tricks' against PBEM opponents who I don't know well. Fear not this kind of behaviour from Capt. Pixel)

Situation #1

Faced with an overwhelming, fast moving US armored force, the Germans opt for a little uniform switch.

VolksGrenadiers on bicycles swap insignia with German Pioneer troops. (This is done on the information screen by clicking on the unit name (in Green) and typing in a new unit designation - can be done during Deploy or during the game)

Three platoons of bicycle Infantry then appear at nine different locations as Pioneers hiding in hedges over about 4 turns. The perceived threat held the US at bay, buyingn time for German armor to respond.

(On a side note: The true unit information was always partially available to the US player, had he bothered to right click one of the 'disguised' Germans.)

Situation #2

I saw this in some movie. Bugger your .50 cal jeep so it sounds like a column of Shermans coming up your side of the ridge.

In the game, you can rename that jeep just before it crests the ridge and potshots at the enemy. If they see the message 'M4A3 (76)w fires .50 cal AAMG' They may totally reconsider the situation they have to face on that hill.

Jeeps are nimble and fast. Scoot one up, shoot and scoot away, shoot again and disappear. Looks to the opponent as if at least two Shermans crested and fired (and then left??)

Situation #3

In WWII, infantrymen reported every tank as a 'Tiger' and every AAA emplacement as an '88'. Well, of course they didn't, but it makes a good story. Anyone under fire is not likely to take a real detailed look at that AAA emplacement and assess it's calibre.

To simulate this adage, rename all the German tanks, AGs and TDs to 'Tiger'. Do the same with ATGs and AAAs renamed as '88's. Then let your opponent sort out which is which.

The same could be done for trucks, ACs and various transports. Why should your opponent know how many MGs you have on your halftracks or amphibs? They still look like halftracks.

Renaming artillery is kind of pointless though. Unless you want to personalize the battery's name. ('Cindy Lou' fires 120mm barrage.)

This kind of 'personalization' can be seen in 'The Raiders go to Work' by Wild Bill Wilder. Others do it represent a more realistic company organizational structure - for 'flavor' (2s/3p/1Co).

So - is it cheating or just 'Mystifying and Misleading'??

[Losqualo]

I never thought of renaming my units...

Capt. Pixel, could you please do me a favour and delete that post? I think Cyricist hasn't read that post yet, so I could give him a nasty surprise when we continue our PBEM Game :rolleyes: .

I wouldn't call that use of an in-game feature cheating. You don't use an external program, you don't use a flaw in the game and while getting an advantage over your enemy, he could do the same.

[Belisarius]

Hmm Captain... I'm not sure what to call it. It would certainly add to the 'fog of war', but I wouldn't recommend it for a PBEM game, unless both sides are familiar with the use.

For situation #2 - why would anyone be more afraid of a Sherman 76 than a .50 cal Jeep?

[Losqualo]

Originally posted by Belisarius
...For situation #2 - why would anyone be more afraid of a Sherman 76 than a .50 cal Jeep?

It's crew would be more afraid, but I think we had that one allready. :rolleyes: :p

[VikingNo2]

I ( IMO ) don't think you should rename. Remaning arty was done to me and it looked like my opponent spent more than he should on arty. Anytime you get the OOB warning and strange stuff starts to happen people worry the the units have been edited as well as the names. There so many other things you can do, to make fog of war.

[Buzzard45]

Capt P. you asstound me. (no sp error). Wearing of the enemy's uniform is specifically prohibited in the Geneva Convention. (well, I heven't read the convention but it only seems that it should be in there). Any person or persons caught wearing the enemy's uniform may summorarily be shot as a spy.

Okay, so this isn't quite the same thing but its close equivalent. Hmmm? Lorne Green did drag trees behind horses to make the Apaches think that there were more of them and John Wayne was known to try a hoodwink or two himself. Hmmm? What would Confusious say? Lets see IIRC.

"If you have three roses and a chair, then you call a chair a rose. How many roses do you have? Answer only three- calling anything a rose does not make it so."

Cheating? No! Unethical? I'd go for that and its just about about as bad. To be sure I think we should add it to "Gary's Rules of Engagement"

[Capt. Pixel]

Situation #4 (per Buzzard45's suggestion)

Your German infiltrators are going behind enemy lines to redirect the Allied advance. English speaking Germans dressed as US Army MPs directing traffic (Sound familiar?)

So you rename your infiltrators 'US Rifle Squad' in hopes that your opponent won't notice the enemies behind his lines. (Of course, you opponent would have to be pretty inept to fall for that one. )

This subject of renaming (which I bring up occasionally) always stirs up a hornets nest of opinion. hehe

Why else do you think I do it? (Besides, M4Jess {TigerJess??} has been so quiet lately. :rolleyes: I'm just not used to it)

Incidentally, I agree with VikingNo2. Renaming isn't cricket in a PBEM. Unless both parties agree to 'no holds barred, anything goes'.

I do however, rename my artillery for my own bookkeeping purposes. Any arty unit that has expended all it's ammo or :shudder: broken it's gun gets renamed 'Empty'. This way I don't try to plot a unit that appears ready to fire a barrage, but, in fact, has no tubes to fire with. This doesn't impact the opponent in any reasonable fashion. (Until your enemy finds your arty park - in which case, who cares what they're named - they're gonna die anyway. )

[VikingNo2]

Renaming them Capt Pixels Death Cannons would be fine with me but naming them 81mm when they are 120mm is what I'm talking about

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by VikingNo2
Renaming them Capt Pixels Death Cannons would be fine with me but naming them 81mm when they are 120mm is what I'm talking about

Uh.. does that make any difference? Except for cases where you've agreed on limitations on +100mm arty.... :p

[rbrunsman]

That's a good idea Capt. P. I'm going to start renaming my busted tubes as such to save on having to keep checking which one is broken.

Moving on... Even if your opponent renames his tubes, can't everyone with a little experience tell the difference you get in sound effects and shell holes between the 50 to 60mm, 80 to 81mm and 120mm mortars (Also, 75mm, 105mm and 150mm arty)? I hardly pay attention to what is displayed when the shells start falling. Watching and listening tells you all you need to know, IMHO.

[pbhawkin1]

Hi all,

I can't see too much of a problem with renaming units. If you are too lazy to carry out your own recon properly (ie right click the unit rather than just hover the cursor over the unit) then you deserve to be surprised :EEK:.
There are many accounts in real life in all wars of deceptions carried out to make the enemy think a particular unit(s) is somewhere it isn't. In fact one of the biggest was prior to D-Day when the Allies built huge numbers of fake tanks in Southern England as well as had whole divisions created (by fake radio traffic) in order to confuse the Germans as to what the size and composition of the invading force was! There are many more used by both sides.
I must add that I have never done this (or even thought about it) BUT do feel it is a legitemate tactic, especially as it is now in the public forum (if you can't be bothered to read the training centre posts then too bad you are doing yourself and your gaming a disservice).

Awaiting the howls of unfair play


pbhawkins

[rbrunsman]

My two cents: Like pb says, if you're too lazy to right click, you deserve what you get.

For this very reason I don't change names myself because all the info my opponent needs is given to him with just a simple right click of the mouse.

[Capt. Pixel]

If every enemy infantry unit coming at you was named 'Daisy Mae's Goat Herder Squad' and each vehicle was named 'Sweet Susie Smacker'. (that is, aside from ROFLYAO) ??

Why would the wise and wonderful programmers of SP and its many and various incarnations have the feature of renaming the unit if they hadn't intended for it to be used? Hmmmmm??

[Toontje]

Renaming is iffy, first time I noticed it in a game I thought it was an OOB glitch. After that it doesn't work, it's a 1shot option.

I don't use it and don't like it to be used against me. Sure I can rightclick every unit, but at that time the fun factor is going down. I'd rather see a full minefield in a meeting engagement.

[Kokoda]

Renaming is iffy, first time I noticed it in a game I thought it was an OOB glitch. After that it doesn't work, it's a 1shot option.

I don't use it and don't like it to be used against me. Sure I can rightclick every unit, but at that time the fun factor is going down. I'd rather see a full minefield in a meeting engagement.

[Kokoda]

I like it! I'm with Cpt P. Why would the designers in their infinite wisdom, have provided these features...?

The renaming doesn't affect the .wav files does it? If it doesn't make that cracking boom that an 88 does it would be hard to believe it is one! If it quacks like a duck...Now that does suggest some opportunities...The snipers with the .wav files of 88s could hold up an attack for a wee while.

Renaming artillery to "INCOMING!" or "TAKE COVER!" could provide a useful product warning to the opponent... and in fact some one is probably drafting up some regulations about it as we speak.

[stevemk1a]

I certainly don't mind renaming units. I've had opponents who have renamed their entire force according to their own numbering system (ie: a tank could be 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ect... ) or humorous changes, like Soviet engineers renamed 'Angry Farmers" (Hi Angry Deemon!!) ... I especially like the funny ones "Plleeez don' kill me" etc... I have adapted the practise of renaming broken arty pieces and it it's very handy! ... However vs. a newbie, renaming is a very smelly tactic. I usually don't rename unless it's a broken arty piece or I'm trying to be funny ...

[Vathailos]

This is an excerpt from another post I'd made addressing "re-naming" units.

An EXCELLENT game, but CPT Pixel's having a bad influence on Red

Turns out, some ammo trucks were re-named as that country's appropriate mundane transport trucks *grumbles* and I went for other targets instead.

We've agreed in the future to "subterfuge" only if both sides agree. We based that decision on the following pretext:

One player unilaterally reducing the "true-ID" ability of his opponent (every SPWAW unit has that as the default setting in the game) is not proper or honorable. If you don't tell your opponent that you may be doing this, all your units still ID the enemy at 100%, whereas the enemy no longer has that infallibility.

In other words, one player's choosing to degrade the "ID-ability" of his opponent's troops while his own troops remain able to ID with 100% accuracy (unless the opponent is a sneaky bugger too). He's choosing to give himself an advantage that his opponent doesn't have by default. It could be considered as underhanded as upping your tank toughness in the setup, and slipping it by a less-experienced opponent IMO.

The logic that "if you're too lazy to check it, you deserve what you get" wears a bit thin for me. Using that rationalization, what's wrong with exceeding the number of infiltrators or artillery limits you'd agreed to, for example? If the opponent doesn't check after the game to verify that you adhered to the "agreed" limits, then you did nothing wrong by fudging. I mean in reality, the US and Germans never agreed on how much artillery they'd use against each other... .

I'd prefer to keep re-naming as an option in games, but agreed upon in advance by both parties.

Thoughts?

[Buzzard45]

That it should be in the rules of engagement. It could be used as a method of depriving normal and vital info not unlike fast artillery on. Sure, you see the damage but name changes could be done each turn and used in such a manner that it would give an unfair advantage. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see hoards of Tigers in one hex when there is only one and try target that one tiger when all the infantry or kubelwagons are called Tigers as well.. Or nonsence name bombarding a hex either directly or indirectly. A flame thrower from a Flamepanzer looks the same as a from an Engineers squad. A SiG33 shell looks like a Sturmtiger shell from the receiving end. An 88 looks the same from a Tiger as it does from an ATG.

I think its best to keep this in the open and least agree to its use or non-use. It is spy-work, no less important than infiltrators or airstrikes.