Maskirovka in CM:BB

[The Commissar]

Alright, I think this was talked about lightly a long while ago, so here it comes up again:

Maskirovka, as most probably know, is the Soviet (and probably to some extent Nazi) practice of applying heavy camoflauge, dummies (minefield, tanks, all fake) and other tricks to decieve the enemy and get the advantage of surprise.

The way I see this being implemeted is like this:

1) Only Soviets on defense can purchase extra Maskirovka equipment (don't have stats for the Germans, so maybe it should be available for them as well).

2) Maskirovka will be represented by extensive bought camouflage for your units. This will include extra cammo for AT guns, tanks (yes, tanks), and infantry positions.

3) Maskirovka would make it possible for units to blend into the terrain and have a low chance of being spotted (lower then usual). To be hidden, they would have to be in wooden terrain, so as to blend in.

4) Entire Soviet tank formations were camoed this way on many occasions, and sometimes the job was done so well that the Germans approached within several hundred meters without noticing the Soviet armor (or gun, or infantry).

5) Maskirovka would probably play the most crucial role for the tanks. Guns and infantry are already very hard to spot, so Im not sure how this could be handled.

6) Im thinking there should even be experience levels for Maskirovka, to represent more experienced engineers putting them up.

OK, now, comments?

[JonS]

Wouldn't this apply at a much higher level than CM depicts? IOW, you want to decieve your enemy into thinking an attack is going to happen 100s of miles away, rather than 100s of yards.

[The Commissar]

I agree with you Jon, but that's only the operational effects of effective maskirovka. It has its place in the tactical view on things as well, however. I think it's on the Russian battlefield where there are multiple accounts of tankers letting the German machines advance very close to them before opening fire. This was sometimes essential to do well when faced with superior armor.

[JonS]

Ah. OK. But can't you acheive that as the game stands now through the effective use of ground and the hide command?

[The Commissar]

Jon,

Did you ever try to use the Hide command with tanks in any of your games? Don't. Unless of course you want to have your tank get shot and and not return fire, because currently, thats about the only thing the Hide command does for AFV's.

As for hiding the AFV's behind terrain, it is of course a logical notion, but its besides the point.

[Grisha]

Commissar, at the tactical level camoflauge was put to effective use by most combatant nations. Maskirovka as uniquely practiced by the Soviets was really meant to impact at the operational/strategical level. If one were to apply the effects of maskirovka as typically practiced by the Soviets on a tactical level, ie CMBB, then one should give the Soviet player massive numerical superiority at the setup of an attack/assault scenario, or assign substantial forces in a defensive scenario with the possibility of reinforcements.

[easy-v]

In all fairness, didn't Squad Leader (the High Holy Original), utilizing concealment rules, allow for something like this (at least in spirit).

IIRC, you masked your setup units with a counter that had a question mark on it. You were also allowed extra concealment counters to make "dummy stacks"

...or maybe that nueron died a horrible death and I am just off my rocker...

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by easy-v:

In all fairness, didn't Squad Leader (the High Holy Original), utilizing concealment rules, allow for something like this (at least in spirit).

IIRC, you masked your setup units with a counter that had a question mark on it. You were also allowed extra concealment counters to make "dummy stacks"

...or maybe that nueron died a horrible death and I am just off my rocker...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I'm not prepared to comment on the state of your neurons, you have that part of it right. SL also allowed hidden placement in which units were not placed on the map but their locations were recorded on a slip of paper and placed on the map if they moved, fired, or peformed some other action within the LOS of an enemy unit.

But I fail to see how that addresses the present question. CM already incorporates the equivalent of hidden placement and, IMO, does it better.

Michael

[easy-v]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

But I fail to see how that addresses the present question. CM already incorporates the equivalent of hidden placement and, IMO, does it better.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that the first method, that of placing your counters on the mapboard, allowed for a degree of deception, something that CMBO models only in the misidentification of units in Fog of war mode. A spotted, but unidentified unit marker, in my experience, doesn't show up in CM unless your troops have either spotted or heard a unit moving in the vacinity of an actual enemy unit. Which is hardly deceptive, it's just modeling an aspect of the human element.

A tactical ruse or dummy fortification, IMHO, wouldn't seem to be out of the parameters of CM, as pillboxes, which are fixed emplacements, are included. Don't forget that pillboxes and prepared fortifications were often camoflauged to look like something other than pillboxes, which could lead to misidentifcation. In this instance, I could see how this would be handled by the spotting rules of the game, where the bunker wouldn't show in the game until it was positively identified by friendly units.

This is just one example of course. Another could be an abandondoned trenchline, which inexperienced or weary troops could mistakenly identify as occupied. Maybe pre-abandoned fortifications should be a unit added to the mix. It could provoke attacking units to firing prematurely.

My post deals with tactical deceptive practices, not so much the operational level ones as Commissar is talking about.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

Jon,

Did you ever try to use the Hide command with tanks in any of your games? Don't. Unless of course you want to have your tank get shot and and not return fire, because currently, thats about the only thing the Hide command does for AFV's.

As for hiding the AFV's behind terrain, it is of course a logical notion, but its besides the point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I once played a scenario in which I was given a SdKfz 251 which was placed in a wood tile. Since I couldn't move it I decided to *hide* it. The attacking american infantry and tanks didn't detect it until they were almost upon it. To me it seemed that the "hide" command in combination with the wood terrain for some unexplainable reason (afv's shouldbn't be in woods in the first place so the game really wouldn't have to provide for this) gave the AFV a considerable concealment boost.