Matrix Games Forums

Agree with Buzzard, and hadn’t considered the confusion that could ensue in his examples. Want to point out that I don’t disagree with renaming conventions that are totally for ease of play (renaming broken tubes), only those that are intended as subterfuge, unless both sides agree.

Just thought about re-naming SF infiltrators as “Airborne” troops to confuse the enemy or circumvent limits on infiltrators…

Mother tried renaming a few PzIII's as Tigers. Initially there was a little shock on my part but being a Tiger or a PZIII it still had to die. It may be named a Tiger but it still looked like a PZIII. They died but the game went down hill for me from there.

Klinkenhoffen wrote:Mother tried renaming a few PzIII's as Tigers. Initially there was a little shock on my part but being a Tiger or a PZIII it still had to die. It may be named a Tiger but it still looked like a PZIII. They died but the game went down hill for me from there.

I routinely rename my vehicles for organizational reasons. True, you could just go by AD0, and so on, followed by the stock name, but, if I play Germans, and I have an armored force, I like to give them the correct turret numbers. Just my personal pref,, and one I don't feel I have to clear with anyone, it's not an attempt at camoflage, or whatever, just something I like to do!!

Warhorse

Understood and agreed, Warhorse.

I hope you can see the differentiation I'm trying to make between "naming for historical/reference reasons" and "naming for deception" (as in the Ammo truck example above).

The former is perfectly allowable IMO, and the latter only if both sides agree in advance to "deception" based upon the aforementioned reasons.

**** cut-n-paste errors!

Vathailos wrote:Understood and agreed, Warhorse.

I hope you can see the differentiation I'm trying to make between "naming for historical/reference reasons" and "naming for deception" (as in the Ammo truck example above).

The former is perfectly allowable IMO, and the latter only if both sides agree in advance to "deception" based upon the aforementioned reasons.

**** cut-n-paste errors!

I agree, the ammo truck thing is a little over the top, however, as was mentioned, it is a good idea to recon also, and if there's any doubt, hell, shoot first ask questions later, no??!

Warhorse

Vathailos wrote:the US and Germans never agreed on how much artillery they'd use against each other... .

rundstedt:

dear gen. patton, would you please not use this terrible masses of 155m howitzer arty in your next attack ?
it destroys the fighting morale of my men, if they come under this heavy arty fire for hours before they see any US infantryman. we - the prussian officers - still want to fight on equal terms, so i hope you understand my concern in this question.

my best greetings + luck for your future military operations and succes in your general career.....

gerd v. rundstedt
fieldmarshall german wehrmacht and commander of the western front


patton:

my beloved gerd,

you are right ! war is really terrible and should be more fair. i would agree in this topic but there is a little problem: our intel just reported there are 10 or more kingtiger tanks among your forces ( or more to say in the aachen area which will be my next operational goal b.t.w. ). my men also have serious trouble dealing with them ( esp. think of the poor tankers in their weak sherman tanks ). so perhaps you can send this tigers to a training mission or so away from the aachen area around the 7/8 ( my attack will start 7h in the morning on one of these days btw. ) ? i will then order the arty men to take a break just before the battle starts....

i hope YOUR career will not be be less succesful than mine ( even if germany will lose the war )..and also my best regards to your wife !

gen. g.s.patton
comanding general US army


hitler:

**** ami scum !!! rundstedt can not move 1 single tank without my permission, so f*** yourself ! and note: i reading every radio transmission of my leading officers so stop this tries to get rid of my super weapons !!

adolf hitler
crazy dictator ( one of the worst in history )

Since I've taken to playing w/ C&C on, I've started adding a "-" dash after the names of units that don't have a radio. Makes it easier when I'm plotting moves - keeps me from letting certain units get too far from their leaders. I doubt anyone would notice unless I said something.
.

As the player cited by Vathailos as using "renaming for deception" in the ammo truck example, I would like to have my own say on the matter.

1) As a new player this was only my 2nd battle as a PBEM player. In my first battle my opponent set up map, date, visibility etc. I suffered badly because my opponent dashed to all VH in first move.. high visibility meant that 17pdrs pounded every unit that popped up over the setup ridge on my first turn. Ammo trucks were also targeted from long range and destroyed. So this time, in an attempt to learn from my mistakes and create a more balanced fight, I said I would set up engagement.

2) The agreement before the fight was:

5000 pts
10% Artillery(indirect firing larger than small mortars)
max 3 plt infiltrators
no paradrops
air sections as computer decides
no firing after unloading AA guns
no reinforcements
true troop rarity on
c&c off

The only reason for using these was they were the same as my last opponent suggested.

The rationale in my mind behind renaming the ammo trucks was that a canvas covered truck is a canvas covered truck, it doesnt look any different to any other truck, its not marked AMMO TRUCK on the side so that some gunner a mile away can target it in preference to any other target in view. If, as happened an infiltrator unit passes by some trucks maybe 150 yds away then what do they do? Do they open fire on them and give away their existance or do they approach nearer to find what it is the trucks are servicing? In this case it was 3 Katyusha launchers.
Although it seems to be the general concensus of opinion here that renaming for deception should not be done without prior agreement, I would argue that deception is a vital part of all warfare...from distant history to the present day. After all the Trojans would not have got very far if their horse had a big label on it Greek APC (Passenger Greek Special Ops). One of the major factors in the victory at El Alamein was cardboard tanks and guns, unit moving up and down to great duststorms that looked like major unit movements.
Whilst these are not necessarily all things that can be duplicated in the game, I do not agree that renaming in this instance is the heinous crime its being made out to be.
As a new player I had no idea that this would cause such a heated debate. I am at the mercy of experienced players in what is acceptable and what is not. Is it the winning that is important to those playing or being faced with a thought provoking battle which asks questions of both players tactics.
What I have learnt on here already is that some tactics are acceptable and some are not. At the risk of repeating myself the set up for this game was only the result of ONE previous PBEM game. I notice now that pre laid minefields in engagement meetings is also a NO NO...so how come my opponent (Vathailos) used them in our battle, I know that there was no agreement in the set up stage about mines, but as a new player I didnt know they were something that needed to be agreed upon. So it is with some indignation that I see my name being brought up by Vathailos in his post, where he seems to be taking a moral stance in terms of deception. I had no qualms about telling him about my action at the end of the game. I only noticed his minefields as a result of looking at his setup after he gave me his password, for a "last-turn" look at the map. In my mind there are much more historical instances and reasonable rationales to warrant renaming than there are instances of laying mines as units advance in a chance meeting against a newbie!!! I can see that as someone else has previously said that maybe we will all end up sending more emails arguing setup and historical precidents than we send turns to each other...!

Red,

I did NOT mean to come here and slander you at all.

You were not "at fault" for renaming your units. Especially since you indicated that you were as new as I am to PBEM.

You are misunderstanding me drastically.

The "Incident" of renaming brought up what I think is a crucial point. Deception WAS a valid practice during that time. But BOTH sides practiced it. My reason for bring it up was to agree before hand that it either IS or IS NOT allowed.

I was not condemning you for doing it, and I wish you wouldn't take it that way. Matter of fact, I've referenced you as a competent and honorable player in conversations/messages with others I play here.

Please take that to heart. You're vastly misunderstanding my point and getting defensive when it's completely uncalled for.

In addition, in our game I DID NOT PRE-LAY MINES.

If you'd bothered to look at some of the units you killed close to those mines, you'd notice that they were Engineers. You may not be aware yet, but engineers can be set to clear, not clear, or place mines DURING gameplay.

In other words, I didn't start the game with a minefield in place. However, during the course of our gameplay, I created them on what I determined to be strategic high-speed avenues of approach as a suppliment to my defense. I do this often.

Please realize and not the difference between the two types of mine fields. There are those you make during the "Setup" phase, comprised of mines you purchase in the beginning, and there are the kind you lay as the game goes on.

I hope this clarifies things. And once more, please accept my apologies if I unintentionally implicated you in ANYTHING. You have NOT behaved dishonorably. Actually, quite the contrary. Please reconsider!!!

Now THAT is an apology !!

Good job V

Hell after reading that Vath I feel better LOL

RED Devil have we played ?

Red Devil wrote:.....The rationale in my mind behind renaming the ammo trucks was that a canvas covered truck is a canvas covered truck, it doesnt look any different to any other truck, its not marked AMMO TRUCK on the side so that some gunner a mile away can target it in preference to any other target in view. If, as happened an infiltrator unit passes by some trucks maybe 150 yds away then what do they do? Do they open fire on them and give away their existance or do they approach nearer to find what it is the trucks are servicing? In this case it was 3 Katyusha launchers.
Although it seems to be the general concensus of opinion here that renaming for deception should not be done without prior agreement, I would argue that deception is a vital part of all warfare...from distant history to the present day. After all the Trojans would not have got very far if their horse had a big label on it Greek APC (Passenger Greek Special Ops). One of the major factors in the victory at El Alamein was cardboard tanks and guns, unit moving up and down to great duststorms that looked like major unit movements.
Whilst these are not necessarily all things that can be duplicated in the game, I do not agree that renaming in this instance is the heinous crime its being made out to be.....!

Red Devil has a definite point about the canvas covered trucks. They all look the same in RL and in the game, the icons are the same except for the German ammo trucks.

In the RL, peacetime army, ammo trucks carry a special placard on the bumpers denoting them as such. I know since I've crewed one. You want to alert everybody to stay clear and be especially careful around them, especially with cigarettes. Although it's possible in wartime that these trucks are not so marked, (any vets want to correct me?), it seems unlikely because the placards (known as TAC signs) are small enough and cryptic enough that if the enemy was close enough to understand them, he's going to be shooting at them anyway.

On a slight aside, I just watched a movie followed by a documentary on the Halifax explosion (largest explosion in the world before the A-bomb) and 'Mont Blanc' notably did NOT fly the red flag denoting it was carrying ammunition specifically to avoid becoming a preferred U-boat target.

So, even though I haven't done it nor (knowingly) had it done against me, it doesn't seem unfair to rename an ammo truck as just a truck (of whatever variety it looks like from the outside.)

On the same note, I HAVE renamed an infantry unit that was designated as HQ to call it just an infantry unit. Since it was several months ago, I can't remember what the specifics were but I thought it unfair to me that my opponent would know he was targetting HQ instead of just soldiers. In the army in combat uniforms, officers specifically have their insignia made hard to see so that they won't be singled out as targets.

Renaming a jeep as a tank or a 37mm as an 88mm is dumb IMO, since looking at it you can see it's different and the .wav files give weapons and engines different sounds. It just becomes annoying to your opponent to have to inspect each unit to find out it's true ID.

However, renaming something like an engineer squad as a bicycle platoon would seem to be wrong because in RL, the difference would be obvious but the game icons don't give a clue to the difference.

Therefore, I suggest a couple of rules. IMO it should be okay to rename a unit IF and ONLY IF, the icon for that unit is the same AND the unit would look the same at a reasonable safe distance to an enemy observer in RL. Both of these rules must be satisfied before a name could be changed in the game.

FI, you could rename an ammo truck a 'truck', but not a Sherman, you can call Rangers an infantry squad, but can't call an engineer squad ordinary infantry. Even though the game icon might be the same, you know in RL that an engineer carries much more obvious equipment and so the name change doesn't satisfy both rules as listed above. By the same token, you also couldn't call a Nashorn a Tiger either since they don't bear any resemblance even though the main weapon is the same.

On a slightly different note however, what about calling a Nashorn an '88mm tank'? It sounds the same and the unit on the recieving end, if he doesn't get the chance to see it, wouldn't know the difference as long as you also called all the Tigers '88mm tanks'. By the same token, all Panthers, Hetzers etc. would be '75mm tanks'. It would be obvious to the opponent as soon as the icon is spotted but it would not be trying to make the tank out as something it is not.

Same with large towed guns. The explosion from a 120mm shell should be about the same whether it's a howitzer or a mortar; the guy on the recieving end wouldn't know in RL unless he found the tube. What is everybody's opinion on this idea?

I discussed this issue with a regular opponent. He told me that he didn't care what I did with my unit's names.

"If it has your flag on it. I'm gonna kill it!" That's pretty straight forward.

He recently renamed his IT Flamthrowers "Poopengassen", "Flingerflamers", and "K9 Troops".

He's right though, if it's got his flag on it - I still shoot to kill.

My major issue with IDs still remains the distinctions made in platoon units such as the UK infantry squads. I fail to see how the enemy can determine which fellows are the Platoon HQ as opposed to any other regular tommy. Do they wear special khaki shorts and all smoke pipes (or play the pipes?) I regularly rename units such as these to match the other IDs in the platoon. Without reservation, excuses or apologies.

I'm good with that also.

If IRL an enemy couldn't tell one from the other, why should it in the game? But on the other hand if there is an obvious difference. Naming 120mm motars as 60mm FI or vice-versa, then that would be an unfair deception.

The Sherman VC firefly should not be changed because it has a noticeably different weapon. They were known as a kill-me-quick target. However, It could be called a 17pdr gun. It would be obvious once it is spotted that it is a 17pdr tank but until it is spotted it is only an ATG, unless of course it also fires its CMGs or the like. Smarter spotters will pick up on this and it is part of the bonuses of being a veteran.

Different weapons have distinctive sounds which make it more likely that a unit being fired apon could ID it. The 75L70 of the Panther would sound the same as the same gun on a Jagpanther but I'm not sure that a 75L43 would have the same shell-whistle when firing. Someone please correct me on this.

Different infantry types have different uniforms and different organic equipment, making IDing a FJ unit from a Volk-grenedier unit not all that unlikely. However, who is to say which squad is the HQ squad. That being said, the AO squad IS likely to look different in all armies during that time period.

A common sense approach is needed and also disclosure of the possibility at game's start or when it is appropriate. I think it appropriate that we add this to "Gary's Rules of Engagement". I try to play all my games under these rules and it has saved un-countable discussions and hard feelings.

I was playing a friend from work

I deleted all my unit names and their weapon names

Lets just say he was super confused since he didnt know all the unit ID pictures either

Hi Friends and Fiends,
finally I have reach the objective to register (and, of course, log in ) myself to this very interesting place. It was not easy (many tries and errors ), but here I am. Greets to you all.

At topic: IMHO the game-rulez are the only limitation. Why not use any feature, the game allows? "Shermans" and "Kingtigers" are in fact no well-balanced units, but there are enough tactical possibilities to deal with superior armor etc. Any tactic has its counterpart. Also minefields can be cleared...even in meeting engagements.

Btw: I will not rename any units, because this would give the opponent an advantage (f***, I have forgotten, that it was no tiger... ).

IMHO, you cannot call it cheating to use any legal game-feature. It is more fun for me to handle the unexpected...
And right-clicking indeed solves some mystery...

Greets

Buzzard45 wrote:...Different weapons have distinctive sounds which make it more likely that a unit being fired apon could ID it. The 75L70 of the Panther would sound the same as the same gun on a Jagpanther but I'm not sure that a 75L43 would have the same shell-whistle when firing. Someone please correct me on this.

I agree. Incidentally, there is no way, TIKO, to rename individual weapons on a unit. Once it fires, a savvy opponent will have a really good idea what's shooting at him.

Buzzard45 wrote:...Different infantry types have different uniforms and different organic equipment, making IDing a FJ unit from a Volk-grenedier unit not all that unlikely. However, who is to say which squad is the HQ squad. That being said, the AO squad IS likely to look different in all armies during that time period...

I think, at least on the infantry issue, that the RL conditions would make anybody in the wrong-shaped helmet a target. Once you've driven your enemy into the mud, behind logs, etc. your ability to ID their insignia is reduced. And, at the point that you're exchanging fire, what rank or service branch your shooting at becomes of lesser concern. This kind of specific information would more likely come to light during mop-up. "Wow, Jeb! We greased an SS squad"

There are, of course, many conditions where visibility is good, people have binoculars and enough experience to determine the magnitude of the threat, and that information can be communicated to some authority that can act upon it.

As for equipment, there are definitely distinctive profiles presented by different vehicles. But, as stated earlier, many features are not readily discernable just by looking. The T34 maintains it's external profile until up-gunning to the 85mm. Yet there are a number of non-visible improvements in the series. {eg. Fire Control, Armor} The same is true for the US, GE and UK vehicles. (In the case of the UK, there were so many different styles, the Germans probably couldn't keep up anyway. "WTF is that tank??" )

For a short period, the Allies were reporting, after their first appearance, that every enemy tank that crested the rise was a Tiger. The Germans also believed during that period, that the Tiger was invulnerable. They were ultimately both proven wrong.

The convention of descriptive naming of units is more an aid to the player using them. But I feel that it gives the enemy more information that he should really be entitled to.

It is nice that this game has so much flexibility so as to allow one to modify features, such as these, to suit individual perspectives.

Fallschirmjager wrote:I was playing a friend from work

I deleted all my unit names and their weapon names

Lets just say he was super confused since he didnt know all the unit ID pictures either

!!
ROFLMAO

Welcome to the boards, FriendlyFire. Glad to have you here.

FriendlyFire wrote:Hi Friends and Fiends,
finally I have reach the objective to register

welcome !


is F-city = frankfurt ?