|
Red Devil -> Right of Reply.... (8/27/2003 4:53:42 AM)
|
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...!
|
|
|
|
