Announcement

**Harovan** · January 7, 2003, 08:48

You are funny!

If they'd put the names in quotes "...", the confusion would be gone. More confusing would it be to rename our units after they went out of their view.

**Randolph** · January 7, 2003, 08:50

Some of their members (well at least one e.g. flash) might even get considerably upset if they decided to kill a unit named after him

.

**Shiber** · January 7, 2003, 09:05

Sir Ralph: that's a brilliant idea! If we rename warriors when they're out of Vox's sight it would make them think that we have more warriors that we really do! We should begin implementing this strategy at once!

Randolph: another excellent point. This would just add to the confusion within the enemy's ranks. Let's do it!

**Harovan** · January 7, 2003, 09:07

Originally posted by Randolph
Some of their members (well at least one e.g. flash) might even get considerably upset if they decided to kill a unit named after him

.

Nah, I guess they would even say "Kill the imposter!"

**Randolph** · January 7, 2003, 09:34

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Nah, I guess they would even say "Kill the imposter!"

Well in either case their actions are being affected by the names of our units, which might be taken advantage of in some small way. It could certainly provoke them, not something we want to do at the moment, but it could be at some point.

I like the idea of changing names while out of sight, although I'm sure they'll figure out that we're changing names (and don't have 20 warriors

), it will leave them uncertain about exactly how many. And the more information we can deprive them of the better.

**Shiber** · January 7, 2003, 10:33

We can start with Slash (Ouch is already in their sight, given that they moved Willy southward this turn).

**Conqueror** · January 7, 2003, 10:34

Good ideas here

For example: they saw Slash as he was going north under Willy's nose, now that Slash is not in sight of any enemy warriors, we could change his name to something else, atleast they'll have to think a while who that was or may even think that one more of our warriors slipped behind Tim and Willy.

Confusing the enemy is always good

Altough i liked the idea to renaming some unit after Dissident, i think i'll do just that in Earth PBEM where he's right next to me

/edit:shiber beat me to slash name issue

**alva** · January 7, 2003, 10:51

after Dissident, i think i'll do just that in Earth PBEM where he's right next to me

Hey, don't start giving awayteam tactics in Single Pbems now, you hear

**FrustratedPoet** · January 7, 2003, 11:57

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
More confusing would it be to rename our units after they went out of their view.

We should definitely do this.

**alva** · January 7, 2003, 12:19

Just make sure we don't overuse this. It has to look 'real'/convincing in order to work.

**FrustratedPoet** · January 7, 2003, 12:42

we should also be aware that other teams might use it.

don't trust all the names of units you see.

**Harovan** · January 7, 2003, 13:20

We won't overuse it. The only possibility I see for now, as was mentioned twice, is to rename Slash.

**DeepO** · January 7, 2003, 15:23

Well, as the one with the original idea (over a month ago), I strongly disapprove using the change-name strat now. Not even for Slash.

- First of all, if they are reading the power graph, they know exactly how many warriors we have, if we would change anything now it would give away something that might not be so good now, but can become important later on.

- Second, the best time to do this is right after, or at the same time of settling a city. They see a bump in the power graph, but can't know if it equals a new city, or equals 2 units built at the same time.

- Third, we only want to do it when we want to deceive them into thinking we've got a bigger army then we actually have, or, in case of an imminent invasion, we have a smaller army then we really have. At this moment, Vox knows we have 5 warriors, and they have one warrior less. If we would rename something now, it can only show we have more units, which would scare them into building more military of their own. This is exactly what we want to avoid.
The best times for using it would be when we see their military rising, and we want to virtually compensate while we catch up, or we are preparing an invasion, and 'recycle' names, using some of them twice to show we have not much power, and they shouldn't be pushed into building up their military.

- And last concern: we have to be very careful to whom, and when we do it, as it has to be very convincing. We need to take into account directions troops are facing (so can only really do it on roads), we have to take into account that they will project possible locations of each unit they see disappearing from their lign of sight. We must match precise stats of doubly named units. Eventually, this will mean that only a few specific situations might work, e.g. we can virtually chain units, where they go one move backwards instead of 2 moves forwards (on road), we can change some names on patrolling units, we might show units 'arriving' in a city when in reality only a unit moves back and forth.

- last comment: this will be fine, for as long as they don't get a hold on our map (so no changing when we are trading it), and for as long as they don't explore cities to see how many units are in there. These two tactics are also needed for us to see if they are doing it.

DeepO

**DeepO** · January 7, 2003, 15:34

Oh, BTW, please don't use this in a single PBEM, at least not until we know we've been discovered! It would ruin everything

DeepO

Announcement

Unit names and psychological warfare

Unit names and psychological warfare

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment