Renaming Convoys to Disguise Them

[ncali]

Plaid pointed out in his AAR that you can choose to rename convoys whatever you like (rename a garrison as an armour for example) while they are at sea. I didn't realize this was possible. Initially, I was not sure I liked it but it may add something to the game and the limitations on the number of units at sea in GS help prevent ridiculous overexploitation (like spamming the Atlantic with renamed garrison transports to distract the uboats). And you could always agree with an opponent before a game not to do this if you both don't like it.

But I wanted to post something in the main forum so that everyone would be aware of it. So beware sending all your air or uboats to target that ominous looking "armour" while leaving the innocuous "garrison" next to it undisturbed!

[gerones]

This possibility of renaming a transport could be very useful for the allies for landing in France. The allies created many fictitious units (for deception purposes) to distract the german High command from the main landing. And this possibility of renaming transports could simulate this. So you can send a landing garrison force to distract from the main landing since confusing the enemy about where it was going to be the main disembark was crucial in Normandy landings.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Renaming transports can be a two edged sword. You can confuse your opponent, but you can also confuse yourself. Remember that you can't see the type of unit being carried on a transport except for the name. So if you rename many of the transports and start moving them then it's hard to figure out which is which unless you write down on a piece of paper that transport 1 = armor, transport 2 = fighter etc.

[ncali]

These are all good points, and this is a fun feature that makes up for the game mechanic requiring you to leave units at sea for a whole turn before an invasion.

I guess I'm just a little ambivalent about it for 2 reasons. One is that it probably was not contemplated by the original designers when they added the ability to rename units, which I believe was sometime after the initial release of the game and was simply in response to gamers wanting to be able to name the units. The second is that it generally (but not always) helps the Allies, and I don't think they need the help. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure everyone knew about it.

[rkr1958]

Personally, I think it's a great feature and have started making use of it in my current games. Right now I'm just remaining my transports to something like, Transport[151], Transport[152], Transport[153], etc. As Borger pointed out above I do have to write down what each transport is and continually refer to the list.

I also like the disinformation potential part of it too. Like remaining a mechanized transport to a garrison and vise a versa. This way your opponent might think he's blocking a mechanized corps from landing and only allowing a weak garrison to land when the opposite is true.

In terms of using this for the axis, in past games I've renamed every u-boat flotilla to the same name so as to try to confuse my opponent on the number of flotillas I actually have.

Personally, I think all this adds to both the realism and fun of the game. It never occurred to me that some player might not like this.

[adherbal]

It sounds more like an exploit than a feature. If there is no reason NOT to rename units - and there isn't - the opponent shouldn't be able to see the unit types in the first place. Otherwise the "feature" just adds unnecessary micromanagement and gives a disadvantage to people unaware of the possibility.

In order for this to be a "feature" it should either be limited to X units, cost resources or have some other downside.

Just my thoughts from a game design point of view

[rkr1958]

It sounds more like an exploit than a feature. If there is no reason NOT to rename units - and there isn't - the opponent shouldn't be able to see the unit types in the first place. Otherwise the "feature" just adds unnecessary micromanagement and gives a disadvantage to people unaware of the possibility.

Interesting. It never occurred to me that some players might consider this an exploit.

If there is no reason NOT to rename units - and there isn't - the opponent shouldn't be able to see the unit types in the first place. Otherwise the "feature" just adds unnecessary micromanagement and gives a disadvantage to people unaware of the possibility.

Good point. The only downside is that if you don't write down what you've renamed your transports to then you might forget what is what. Also, you can only rename before you move so if you forgot and move a transport before renaming it you won't be able to rename it until next turn.

Also, for units in non-transport mode you can only change it's name and NOT it's unit type. For example if it's a garrison then you could name it XXII Panzer Corps but it's unit type and unit icon would still be a garrison.

There was another thread where someone with the MAC version found that they could rename an opponent's unit that had a leader. I confirmed this in a hotseat game for the PC too. Now, I would consider that juvenile and something I would not do. I think the community agreed with that view in general.

[pk867]

I myself playing the allies rename units for the fun factor. I change the carriers to something like "Ark Royal Taskforce" and so on.
I rename US SAC units to like 97th Heavy Bomb Group that actually participated in the OOB. I have yet to duplicate the renaming of enemy units though.
Which is will just tick off your opponent and degrade game play.

[adherbal]

Good point. The only downside is that if you don't write down what you've renamed your transports to then you might forget what is what. Also, you can only rename before you move so if you forgot and move a transport before renaming it you won't be able to rename it until next turn.

True, but that's not really valid. Imagine you had to go through each unit manually to tell them to entrench terrain. With no reason NOT to entrench that would just be annoying - you'd have to check every unit and remember which units you set to entrench. The renaming "feature" is pretty simular.

In case of naval invasions, I agree renaming is an interesting tool for confusion. But like I said there needs to be a limit or it just becomes an annoyance or exploit. For example if there was a limit you'd have to choose carefully which units to rename:
"Do I hide the nature of a powerful unit?"
"Do I make my opponent believe a petty garrison is a powerful Armour unit?"
...

Those are interesting choices. Currently, there's not really any choice involved. You either bother to rename & remember or you don't and play with a disadvantage.

That said I'm not saying I consider it cheating to use this - as long as all players are aware of the possibility. I'm not playing CEAW competitively so I'm not to judge I'm merely saying that if this was a designed feature, it would be a bad one

[rkr1958]

I'm merely saying that if this was a designed feature, it would be a bad one

I think I can say with fairly high confidence that this feature was not a designed feature but a by product of the feature that lets you rename a unit from say, Panzer Corps to XXII Panzer.

One thing that I've learned over the years about software development is that folks will use your software in ways that you never envisioned and in ways your alpha and beta testers never tried.

[rkr1958]

Fair of Foul?

The below screen cap is from the allied turn 3 in a game that I just started with Borger. The Canadian fighter and garrison (that started in Halifax) are being transfer to England under heavy Royal and French Navy escort. I doubt Borger will challenge such heavily escorted transports; however, I've "disguised" the garrison transport as the fighter transport too. For me, I find this add to the enjoyment of the game but I was wondering if folks thought that this was fair or foul?

[massina_nz]

I think that if you are intending on renaming transports, which I personally am indifferent about, it's something you should agree with your opponent before you start the game.

[rkr1958]

I think that if you are intending on renaming transports, which I personally am indifferent about, it's something you should agree with your opponent before you start the game.

Good point. I just send an email to all four of my (human) opponents whom I have on-going games with to get their take on it. If any of them find it shady then I'll stop.

[joerock22]

I've only skimmed the comments so far, but here are my two cents. I don't have a problem with renaming transports using general names like "transport 1" or "transport." But I do think renaming transports to be outright deceptive is shady; for example, pretending a garrison is an armour. The biggest reason why is that it assumes the other side's intelligence network is too stupid to realize what the transport is really carrying. Intelligence in CEAW is something abstract, mostly contained within the fog of war and spotting ranges, but it's still there.

Let's say the Allies launch an invasion of France and rename all their transpotrs as carrying armour units. Are we to assume the Germans would have no way of knowing what type of unit is carried on which transport? No flyover missions would give them a clue? No spies in England would alert the Reich as to which units were being sent where? I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the Allies could fool the Germans every time, or vice versa.

Having transports with general names (i.e. "transport 1") means that the other side can't see what the transports of the other side are carrying. Renaming them to be deceptive means that the other side sees the wrong thing. These are two very different options, and the first is obviously more realistic than the second. It would be a lot easier to hide the identity of a unit on a group of transports than convince the enemy it is an entirely different unit type altogether.

In conclusion, I will be asking my opponents to refrain from renaming units deceptively. I have no problem with renaming transports to make them anonymous.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I agree with Joe here. Renaming transports so they have neutral names is ok with me, but actively deceiving by writing a different cargo than the truth is something I don't like. So I hope people who want to use such a strategy could use terms like Transport 10, Transport 35 etc. instead of writing Transport (Corps) for an armor transport.

[rkr1958]

I agree with Joe here. Renaming transports so they have neutral names is ok with me, but actively deceiving by writing a different cargo than the truth is something I don't like. So I hope people who want to use such a strategy could use terms like Transport 10, Transport 35 etc. instead of writing Transport (Corps) for an armor transport.

Uh oh ...

Since two of four of my current games are with Joe and Borger I think I'll be renaming my two "fighter" transports to something that's generic.

[ncali]

These are good points and why I started this thread: to make sure people aren't caught off guard.

I also wonder if there isn't some room for change by the modders. I can see some good reasons for unit type to be invisible to the opposing side when a unit is being transported, just as a matter of game mechanics. So you can see what you are moving without the need to keep track, but your opponent can't, absent certain special situations. One good reason for a transporting unit to be "revealed" to the enemy is if the enemy has an adjacent unit present at the beginning of the turn or if/when the transported unit is attacked.

[rkr1958]

[Happycat]

I had not thought of renaming transports, but in all of my games, going back at least 18 months now, I have frequently renamed u-boat flotillas so as to confuse and deceive my opponents. Sometimes it is with the intent to make the opponent think I have more groups than I really do; other times I have other reasons.

It seems reasonable to me to disguise transports, even those that are invading. On D-Day, the Germans didn't know what they were facing, until the ships launched their boats. Even then, there was a lot of confusion, and this was further abetted by the dummy army that Patton was heading up in England. As we know now, Hitler was convinced, even after June 6, that the real invasion was yet to come at the Pas de Calais.

Since many players create dummy transports to create the illusion of an invasion where none is really intended, I don't see why hiding the contents by use of a generic name such as "transport one" should be a problem. I do see why players would object to renaming a garrison to a tank, however.

Ultimately, as someone else already said, as long as both players agree on the ground rules for deception beforehand, it should be fine.

[gerones]

Renaming units to the same name (u-boats, for example) is part of the strategy. Renaming a garrison to an armour sounds a little bit shady but there´s almost no way of ckecking if your opponent have changed the name of the units on that way unless he unloads the unit. The anonymus option sounds better.