I labelled my units rather extensively for a few years.
![Image](http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Mark-1/GHQOldStingers.jpg)
This illustrates my old "detailed labelling" approach. Please nevermind the look, in this case. This is my late 1980s painting and basing skill level, never upgraded to my current standards.
I used to label by company, platoon and squad. In this case it was the battalion AA company, 1st platoon, 1st and 3rd squads of a Cold War era US infantry battalion.
While this approach gave me a very good feeling about my TOE skills and the completeness of my collection, I did not find it particularly productive from the gaming perspective. First, I found that the key information I needed for gaming was mostly the identification of the command units. Since one player seldom controls more than one or two companies, as long as I knew this stand was a platoon leader, I didn't really need to know if it was the 2nd platoon of C company of the 601st independant battalion, or the 3rd platoon of B company of the second battalion, 343rd regiment.
And, pre-labelling at a detailed level was restrictive when game-day arrived.
As an example, when I wanted to mix an infantry company and a tank company into two combined arms combat teams ... well everything was mis-identified! My "Team Yankee" was marked 2/3rds as C Company and 1/3rd as B Company, while "Team Item" was the exact opposite.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
The detailed labelling did not help at all, unless I was willing to re-label my entire force for each and every game.
I also found that my opponents would occasionally read the labels, and adjust their play accordingly.
So I started using sticky labels applied to the bottoms of my units. But this was a bit awkward when gaming too, as I was constantly picking up 3 or 4 units trying to find the CO for any given unit, and once again I had the problems of mixing my TOEs on game day.
So I switched my approach. Now I only mark my command units. And I do so in ways that are clear to me, but perhaps somewhat less obvious to opponents.
![Image](http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Mark-1/InfantryCOY3.jpg)
This is my more recent approach. Here you see my Italian WW2 infantry. The platoon command stands are marked with three slashes. The company command has two. The battalion / battlegroup HQ has one slash.
The slashes are pretty low visibility if you don't know what you are looking for. In this case they are earth brown on a sahara sand (beige) base. Easy enough for me to pick out, even at a distance, but not so easily distinguished from the shrubs or stones on the base, if you don't know you are looking for them.
This approach suits my tastes better. It has a very low impact on the astetics of the game, but still gives me all the information I need to control my forces under the rules I currently use.
I don't base my vehicles ... just never liked the look. In some cases I have given them the slash markings on the turret or hull rear plates. More often, I just do some form of distinctive marking or modelling to distinguish the command vehicles.
![Image](http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Mark-1/SU152scloseupCOYCO.jpg)
For example with my Red Army SU-152s I have put commanders in the hatches of the command vehicles.
![Image](http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Mark-1/M3Lee09.jpg)
Whereas, with my US Army M3 Lee tanks the command vehicles have extra stars, on the hulls, while the other troopers just have stars on the turrets. In this case I have also put rolled tarps on the engine decks of the platoon sergeants' tanks, as these tanks can immediately take over as command tanks if the commanders are taken out of action. The company XO gets both stars and extra kit on the engine deck, as he might well command half the battalion depending on the mission.
Just my approach. Different rules might require more detail. But this is what works for me.