Confusing Allied Intel

[Q-Ball]

Allied intel is very good, and sometimes critical. For JFBs, there are a few tricks though to muddle or confuse Allied Intel. Would love to hear others, but here are some:

--PREPS: Allies get intel when you prep units for offensive targets. To confuse this, you should prep every single unit in Manchuria for an offensive target. Prep the Infantry Divisions for a range of targets, then you can actually "Buy" them if you decide to land on Suva, and you've prepped one for Suva. Otherwise, the Allies will get intel on all of these units, which could be real or not. There is no downside to prepping Kwantung units for other targets, and it will fill the Allied Intel report with bogus stuff.

--CONVOY DESTINATIONS: Allies get intel when "x unit is loaded on AK headed for X". You can confuse this as well in a couple ways
1. Set TF destinations to a point in the ocean just short of the objective. THEN send it to final destination. Otherwise, the Allies get several turns to pick-up your invasion force. If you set to a point in the ocean, they won't get the intel until your troops are coming ashore
2. Set TF destination to a place you DO NOT intend to go to, then set the actual destination using Waypoints. You have to stay on-top of your convoys if you do this, but you can generate intel saying "x unit heading to Pearl Harbor" if you want to, and actually have that unit sailing to Truk.

--GARRISON MOVES: Allies get good intel on unit location and garrison size. The foil for this is to constantly move units around. The Intel reports won't keep up with your moves, so eventually this intel will become unusable.

Anything I'm missing?

[Historiker]

To sink their carriers seems to work quite fine! [;)]

[d0mbo]

Yours are basically the tricks I use. I also prepped some Divisions for West Coast targets just for giggles. I 'm wondering what my opponent thought when he saw Seattle and San Diego on his intel list
 
On a more serious note: try to prep some units for realistic targets that your opponent thinks you actually might go for. E.g. Australia when planning to go for India or something like that.
 
I think creating and disbanding a lot of TF's might give your oponent also a Sigint hint on that port. This way you can feign activity. This is anecdotically observed by me, so I do not know if the DL level is raised by a high number of TF's forming and disbanding.
 
 

[dr.hal]

Q-Ball, thanks for the tips. However I'm wondering if this boarders on being "gamey" in that the fact is the Allies DID have good intel and that did contribute to success (in some cases some would argue it was a "key" to that success!). Are you not deforming the game substantially through "tricks" as you call them so as to substantially undermine a fact of history which I think the game tries to emulate?

Please understand this is not a criticism of what you do and of this thread, as I certainly think it is something that can be done and in game terms only, certainly should be done. I would simply like to know other players' views on this. Thanks for understanding, Hal

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Q-Ball, thanks for the tips. However I'm wondering if this boarders on being "gamey" in that the fact is the Allies DID have good intel and that did contribute to success (in some cases some would argue it was a "key" to that success!). Are you not deforming the game substantially through "tricks" as you call them so as to substantially undermine a fact of history which I think the game tries to emulate?

Please understand this is not a criticism of what you do and of this thread, as I certainly think it is something that can be done and in game terms only, certainly should be done. I would simply like to know other players' views on this. Thanks for understanding, Hal

Actually, it is not too gamey. Just makes it more difficult to find the "gold nuggets" from "chaff". Actually, by itself, it'd resemble intel difficulties quite well.

[SqzMyLemon]

Considering Japanese intel in the game is useless and the Allies benefit from very good SigInt, I don't see any problem in a Japanese player making his dispositions as difficult as possible to determine. Just because the Japanese suffered such hubris as to think their naval code couldn't be broken, doesn't mean a Japanese player should be shackled by it. So the Allies have to work a little harder, no big deal. I always put it in this perspective, somebody on the Japanese side recognized the importance of intel and actually did his job by changing codes and encryption methods on a regular basis, as they should have been doing throughout the war. [:-]

[Nikademus]

The preperation target "trick" so to speak isn't quite the hot ticket it used to be. I've found that Allied Signit rarely gives me a "Unit X is currently preparing to attack location Y message" Makes sense in a way. Midway for example was more an exception to the rule and it took a clever trick by an Intel chief to get the Japanese to essentially "reveal" their bonafide target well before hand and even then it had doubting thomas's.

The radio traffic indicators are often the best means though it's a chore to sift through them. Admittedly as Player two I only glance at Signit and tend to depend on what recon and signal traffic shows on the map. For example if i see a bustle of activity in Rabaul it's fairly evident what's going on. In my current game sure enough.....the Japanese came out with all guns blasting.....to invade tiny undeveloped Milne Bay which was defended by a sngle company of unlucky Aussies who got wiped out before the landing force attacked!!

I had a couple S boats in place. They got not one but TWO shots at KB and missed. Don't talk to me about Signit being useless. I'll hang that CO's testies over a yardarm for putting me through that! [:D]

[Q-Ball]

Do any Japanese players even look at the SigInt report? After a 20th time I get nuggets like "Heavy Radio Traffic detected in San Francisco", I just decided to skip it.

Is there ANYTHING in there worth using?

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The preperation target "trick" so to speak isn't quite the hot ticket it used to be. I've found that Allied Signit rarely gives me a "Unit X is currently preparing to attack location Y message" Makes sense in a way. Midway for example was more an exception to the rule and it took a clever trick by an Intel chief to get the Japanese to essentially "reveal" their bonafide target well before hand and even then it had doubting thomas's.

The radio traffic indicators are often the best means though it's a chore to sift through them. Admittedly as Player two I only glance at Signit and tend to depend on what recon and signal traffic shows on the map. For example if i see a bustle of activity in Rabaul it's fairly evident what's going on. In my current game sure enough.....the Japanese came out with all guns blasting.....to invade tiny undeveloped Milne Bay which was defended by a sngle company of unlucky Aussies who got wiped out before the landing force attacked!!

I had a couple S boats in place. They got not one but TWO shots at KB and missed. Don't talk to me about Signit being useless. I'll hang that CO's testies over a yardarm for putting me through that! [:D]

Well Nik, that's an image I really don't even want to contemplate! Glad to say I'm not in your navy! Hal

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Do any Japanese players even look at the SigInt report? After a 20th time I get nuggets like "Heavy Radio Traffic detected in San Francisco", I just decided to skip it.

Is there ANYTHING in there worth using?

I have picked up Allied TF's from "Heavy Radio Traffic detected at ??,??" on occasion. I don't get ship types, but it has highlighted possible routes being used by enemy shipping. At the very least, it's allowed me to vector submarines into an area and glean more intelligence on some enemy movements.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Do any Japanese players even look at the SigInt report? After a 20th time I get nuggets like "Heavy Radio Traffic detected in San Francisco", I just decided to skip it.

Is there ANYTHING in there worth using?

I have picked up Allied TF's from "Heavy Radio Traffic detected at ??,??" on occasion. I don't get ship types, but it has highlighted possible routes being used by enemy shipping. At the very least, it's allowed me to vector submarines into an area and glean more intelligence on some enemy movements.

On the nose SqzMyLemon.

Sometimes you can track a 'collection' of allied shipping just by plotting out the course of the 'Heavy Radio Traffic Detected...etc' over a few turns, and then as SML has stated, act on that vague 'shadow of intelligence'.

Sometimes it pays off!![8D]

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Considering Japanese intel in the game is useless and the Allies benefit from very good SigInt, I don't see any problem in a Japanese player making his dispositions as difficult as possible to determine. Just because the Japanese suffered such hubris as to think their naval code couldn't be broken, doesn't mean a Japanese player should be shackled by it. So the Allies have to work a little harder, no big deal. I always put it in this perspective, somebody on the Japanese side recognized the importance of intel and actually did his job by changing codes and encryption methods on a regular basis, as they should have been doing throughout the war. [:-]

I assume you also always play with the option Reliable USN Torpedoes on, correct?
Because after all, if somebody on the Japanese side was smart and attentive to his job, then surely somebody on the Allied side was just as smart and attentive to their job.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Considering Japanese intel in the game is useless and the Allies benefit from very good SigInt, I don't see any problem in a Japanese player making his dispositions as difficult as possible to determine. Just because the Japanese suffered such hubris as to think their naval code couldn't be broken, doesn't mean a Japanese player should be shackled by it. So the Allies have to work a little harder, no big deal. I always put it in this perspective, somebody on the Japanese side recognized the importance of intel and actually did his job by changing codes and encryption methods on a regular basis, as they should have been doing throughout the war. [:-]

I assume you also always play with the option Reliable USN Torpedoes on, correct?
Because after all, if somebody on the Japanese side was smart and attentive to his job, then surely somebody on the Allied side was just as smart and attentive to their job.

I don't quite get the jist of your comment about US torpedoes in relation to the discussion of confusing Allied SigInt, nor apparently why my comment seems to merit some sort of dig on your part. Crap Japanese intel is historic as are the U.S. torpedo woes, but where does it say that a Japanese player can't be creative in an effort to mislead his opponent concerning his movements?

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Considering Japanese intel in the game is useless and the Allies benefit from very good SigInt, I don't see any problem in a Japanese player making his dispositions as difficult as possible to determine. Just because the Japanese suffered such hubris as to think their naval code couldn't be broken, doesn't mean a Japanese player should be shackled by it. So the Allies have to work a little harder, no big deal. I always put it in this perspective, somebody on the Japanese side recognized the importance of intel and actually did his job by changing codes and encryption methods on a regular basis, as they should have been doing throughout the war. [:-]

I assume you also always play with the option Reliable USN Torpedoes on, correct?
Because after all, if somebody on the Japanese side was smart and attentive to his job, then surely somebody on the Allied side was just as smart and attentive to their job.

I don't quite get the jist of your comment about US torpedoes in relation to the discussion of confusing Allied SigInt, nor apparently why my comment seems to merit some sort of dig on your part. Crap Japanese intel is historic as are the U.S. torpedo woes, but where does it say that a Japanese player can't be creative in an effort to mislead his opponent concerning his movements?

Where does it say that the Japanese player is free to use gamey tactics to overcome historical deficiencies (rationalized with "what if the Japanese did/did not do X?"), while the Allied player is forced to completely adhere to all historical deficiencies?

The hypocrisy of JFBs never ceases to amaze me.

[topeverest]

Over several games, I have meticulously taken ongoing allied signal intel into various databases and looked into what I get, matching against every empire unit and location and type of intel. It is an extremely powerful exercise if you have the patience to do it and can do a modicum of coding. I even peel off the combat reports into the database. The cumulative intel you receive by tracking all the various elements is a categorical dial turner for the allies. You will have a level of incremental certainty around intel that - quite frankly - most would be hard pressed to believe. It is a true secret sauce for those that can do it (and I am sure some do!). I would bet a buffalo nickel this type of aid has not been developed because it is such a dial turner, becasue if a hacker like me can bastardize a solution, a coder could whip it up in no time.

Of course there is a downside, my wife sometimes hides my PC because I am working so hard on that %^$#@%&*(()!!! game and not paying attention to her.

Qball to your question, I think you have the main things covered.

One thing I havent been able to dechiper is if the intel engine is smart enough grant incremental intel when subs buz harbors. probably not, but a thought.[:D][;)]

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: ckammp



I assume you also always play with the option Reliable USN Torpedoes on, correct?
Because after all, if somebody on the Japanese side was smart and attentive to his job, then surely somebody on the Allied side was just as smart and attentive to their job.

I don't quite get the jist of your comment about US torpedoes in relation to the discussion of confusing Allied SigInt, nor apparently why my comment seems to merit some sort of dig on your part. Crap Japanese intel is historic as are the U.S. torpedo woes, but where does it say that a Japanese player can't be creative in an effort to mislead his opponent concerning his movements?

Where does it say that the Japanese player is free to use gamey tactics to overcome historical deficiencies (rationalized with "what if the Japanese did/did not do X?"), while the Allied player is forced to completely adhere to all historical deficiencies?

The hypocrisy of JFBs never ceases to amaze me.

I play both sides. It sounds to me like your issue is with the game design. You'd be better served directing your angst at the game developers rather than breaking my balls over something I have no control over. I just play the game, I didn't design it.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Do any Japanese players even look at the SigInt report? After a 20th time I get nuggets like "Heavy Radio Traffic detected in San Francisco", I just decided to skip it.

Is there ANYTHING in there worth using?

I have picked up Allied TF's from "Heavy Radio Traffic detected at ??,??" on occasion. I don't get ship types, but it has highlighted possible routes being used by enemy shipping. At the very least, it's allowed me to vector submarines into an area and glean more intelligence on some enemy movements.

I got USS America's two CVs this way.
Of course, it was a lot of consideration in it, helped by the may42 scenario, but it was indeed the reason to expect a heavy convoy.

I love this message!

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: ckammp



I assume you also always play with the option Reliable USN Torpedoes on, correct?
Because after all, if somebody on the Japanese side was smart and attentive to his job, then surely somebody on the Allied side was just as smart and attentive to their job.

I don't quite get the jist of your comment about US torpedoes in relation to the discussion of confusing Allied SigInt, nor apparently why my comment seems to merit some sort of dig on your part. Crap Japanese intel is historic as are the U.S. torpedo woes, but where does it say that a Japanese player can't be creative in an effort to mislead his opponent concerning his movements?

Where does it say that the Japanese player is free to use gamey tactics to overcome historical deficiencies (rationalized with "what if the Japanese did/did not do X?"), while the Allied player is forced to completely adhere to all historical deficiencies?

The hypocrisy of JFBs never ceases to amaze me.

I always agree to do the midway invasion at the historic dates with just 4 carriers. I couldn't bear the fact that I act different from reality and that this is just a game - and not reality!

Actually, USS America and me spend hours for each turn tu read historic records where our ships have to be when, which airgroups have to do what. If the results aren't historic, we redo the turn until it is exactly as it was IRL.

Where wouzld this end, when everyone assumed that WitP AE is just a game? My sword is already next to me for seppuku once we reach 1945!

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon



I don't quite get the jist of your comment about US torpedoes in relation to the discussion of confusing Allied SigInt, nor apparently why my comment seems to merit some sort of dig on your part. Crap Japanese intel is historic as are the U.S. torpedo woes, but where does it say that a Japanese player can't be creative in an effort to mislead his opponent concerning his movements?

Where does it say that the Japanese player is free to use gamey tactics to overcome historical deficiencies (rationalized with "what if the Japanese did/did not do X?"), while the Allied player is forced to completely adhere to all historical deficiencies?

The hypocrisy of JFBs never ceases to amaze me.

I always agree to do the midway invasion at the historic dates with just 4 carriers. I couldn't bear the fact that I act different from reality and that this is just a game - and not reality!

Actually, USS America and me spend hours for each turn tu read historic records where our ships have to be when, which airgroups have to do what. If the results aren't historic, we redo the turn until it is exactly as it was IRL.

Where wouzld this end, when everyone assumed that WitP AE is just a game? My sword is already next to me for seppuku once we reach 1945!

Yes, AE is a game.
I merely wonder why JFBs insist on the ability for Japan to deviate from historical deficiencies while denying the same ability to the Allies?

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: ckammp





Where does it say that the Japanese player is free to use gamey tactics to overcome historical deficiencies (rationalized with "what if the Japanese did/did not do X?"), while the Allied player is forced to completely adhere to all historical deficiencies?

The hypocrisy of JFBs never ceases to amaze me.

I always agree to do the midway invasion at the historic dates with just 4 carriers. I couldn't bear the fact that I act different from reality and that this is just a game - and not reality!

Actually, USS America and me spend hours for each turn tu read historic records where our ships have to be when, which airgroups have to do what. If the results aren't historic, we redo the turn until it is exactly as it was IRL.

Where wouzld this end, when everyone assumed that WitP AE is just a game? My sword is already next to me for seppuku once we reach 1945!

Yes, AE is a game.
I merely wonder why JFBs insist on the ability for Japan to deviate from historical deficiencies while denying the same ability to the Allies?

do they?

I could name dozends of games that were way out of proportion. Almost every Allied player acts in a totally ahistoric way.