Is this cheating? Creating fake targets for enemy arty?

[blazephemik]

I remember one earlier discussion in these boards about counter-artying enemy artillery that is not yet seen but it´s smoke is. Some people though that targeting smokes is kind of cheating. But game is game, and it seems that giving "155mm goodbye" to every smoke seen on enemy´s backline is generally accepted.

But... how about having some units with enough smoke ammo farting around behind your lines? For every artillery unit there should be two or three cheap infantry units or one vehicle with smoke ammos, discharging smoke and creating "fake" targets. If enemy sees 30-40 hexes with smoke in them, he has a lot more difficult task to choose which ones to target.

Creating fake targets raises the odds your artillery will survive from possible retaliation, enemy will most propably waste his ammo, and this also draws fire away from other targets.

I really don´t know is this discussed earlier, or is this also just another generally accepted "asshole-tactic". I´m still a bit noob with this game, so...

[Vesku]

I'd say that's a good way to negate on board counter battery. I always raise my hat to those who create new ways to avoid getting hit (I've used the back area smoking from time to time, usually against players who always fire at my smokes). In real life fakes and decoys are used often so why not in game.

[Fubar]

Popping smoke grenades would create a fresh patch of thick smoke but on-map arty creates smoke slowly over the course of several turns of firing so i think i would be suspicious of any patch of thick fresh smoke that just appeared as if from nowhere......mind you that is a damn sneaky idea.

A+ for that. :bow:

[Haksaeng]

I agree that popping smoke is a great idea. Deception is every bit a part of warfare. Anything you can do to increase your suvivability is necessary, and this is a fantastic idea. If you wait until you see smoke forming over your tubes, pop the smoke to increase the number of targets your opponent would have to attack.

You can combine this with the method the US Army used to use--split battery operations. Half the battery fires while the other half displaces and moves to a new firing position. The Army devised this method to provide continuous fire support while increasing survivability from counterbattery fire.

[Fokkov]

I know one guy who is driving trucks up and down dirtroads to create dust trails which in turn are very good of hiding the big guns. took 2 games for i figured out what he was doing when i managed to get a scout team upclose to see.:pullhair:

[PzHeinZ]

I have an old opponent (not at the Blitz community) that has done this "smoke-deception" for ages. If he has onbord arty he always shoots plenty of smoke puffs here and there (with SP-mortar vehicles) before sending his barrages on me. He also has an nasty habbit in renaming his units before using them e.g. a Hummel becomes a 150mm howitzer. If I´m foolish and have a quick enough FO I start bombarding these "howitzers" which goes in vain since these Hummels are already somewhere else....of course sometimes he makes a mistake of firing me before "smoking" his rear area, he also tends to forget to buy trucks to tow his guns.

I have learned to write down the coordinates at once when his barrages begin...........funny how this fake target thing has not come up before IIRC

[Cross]

I have used 'fake' smoke on occasion, and I don't think it is a cheat or too gamey. I think it helps balence the game.

Smoke grenades/shells appear and disperse with subtle differences to smoke from shooting arty; so it just creates a little more realistic confusion on the battlefield. If you are paying attention and make notes, your opponent is wasting time and smoke, but if you let it get away from you, the smoke will confuse you, and you deserve it

Some famous general made an observation about battlefield smoke, and I can't remember, but it was something like: "Generals know how to use artillery, but intelligent Generals know how to use smoke".

[blazephemik]

Someone could claim renaming units ceating, but I´m pretty sure that it´d be rather difficult to tell exact type of unit from distace IRL either.

Imagine how hard it is to tell if infantryman 1500m away has waterpipe, gustav or milan on his shoulder.

Best advice I learned in army was "try to look harmless, maybe enemy is low on ammo and he don´t want to waste them by shooting at you". Lesson learned, can there be anything less (or more) dangerous than military cook?

Say, if I play as Mujahideen and really want my enemy to underestimate my equipment, I´d rename all my Milans as Gustav, LAW or RPG7 teams. And off course some Gustavs are renamed as Milan teams. If enemy is lazy and don´t check the unit with right click, he´d most propably leave REAL milans alone for a while until he gets the joke.

Off course renaming all guards to conscripts and vice versa is also fun ;D When there are many differend versions of same vehicle, it´d be fun to mess with their names, making mg versions to atgm ones and other way around.

Against expericed opponent this may not help, but off course there is always noobs like me :rolleyes:

The warm feeling you get when enemy :censored: about his precious abrams when it´s destroyed by "gustav" from distance of 2500m. Priceless!

[Cross]

IMHO, renaming units is good for scenarios, but in a PBEM battle I'd think it just about crosses a line, and should be agreed upon before hand.

[Vesku]

Renaming depends, I'd let it go for arty because you can't tell if it's a mobile or towed 150mm howitzer by the sounds of it. Renaming a panther to pzkvIV crosses the line and what comes to scenarios, I really hate when you can't tell by the name of the unit if it's a scout team or an hmg, it takes ages to check every unit every turn.