Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Confusing Allied Intel

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Confusing Allied Intel Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 2:45:19 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6837
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 2:49:36 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
To sink their carriers seems to work quite fine!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 2:53:09 PM   
d0mbo

 

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 3
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 3:08:11 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
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

_____________________________


(in reply to d0mbo)
Post #: 4
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 3:40:12 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 7569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: online

quote:

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.


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 5
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 4:14:16 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 6
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 5:03:59 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25318
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
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!



_____________________________


(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 7
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 8:24:06 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6837
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 8
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 8:55:15 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3241
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline

quote:

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!



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

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 9:16:39 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

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.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 10
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 9:42:23 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1970
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

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!!



_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.
- Michael Burleigh


(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 11
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 9:57:18 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 12
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 10:13:58 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

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?


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 13
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 11:21:46 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

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.

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 14
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 11:34:04 PM   
topeverest


Posts: 3374
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 15
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 11:41:42 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

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.


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.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 6/28/2012 11:42:20 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 16
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 11:44:11 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

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!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 17
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/28/2012 11:47:45 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

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.

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!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 18
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 12:36:14 AM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

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.

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?

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 19
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 12:38:03 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

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.

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.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 20
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 12:49:32 AM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

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.

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.



But were those games out of proportion due solely to a-historical play by the Allied player? Or did other factors - skill level of the players, tactical/strategic decisions by either/both players - also have an impact?
I do not understand why so many of those who chose to play Japan insist on a-historical benefits while at the same time acknowledging that the game will end in the historical result.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 21
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 4:41:27 AM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
Someone has an axe to grind. I want no part of it.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 6/29/2012 4:47:33 AM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 22
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 9:47:25 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6328
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
The fact that Q-Ball calls them tricks makes them gamey IMHO.

If they were strategies or tactics it would be different.

But, If you play against him you sort or your own rules.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 23
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 11:19:42 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14026
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

The fact that Q-Ball calls them tricks makes them gamey IMHO.

If they were strategies or tactics it would be different.

But, If you play against him you sort or your own rules.


What is the problem with using intel deception? The Japanese get NO intel other than radio traffic messages which might be something good or might not. In the war they actually had a lot more than this.

Isn't the goal of a player on either side to attempt to improve upon historical results while having fun doing it? Veiling your intentions takes many forms in game. This is just a small part of it, and in no way detracts from the experience of either side. It should make the game MORE interesting, and more like real intel, as stated above, where players have to sift through carefully and make some sense of what is happening.


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 24
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 11:34:55 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6837
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The fact that Q-Ball calls them tricks makes them gamey IMHO.

If they were strategies or tactics it would be different.

But, If you play against him you sort or your own rules.


I don't understand, would you find this OK if I called them "strategies" instead of "tricks"? Seems like semantics

I play both sides, and I don't have an issue with my Japanese opponent using these strategies without asking me.

Maybe that's me, but I think there is a difference between this, and say, using Para fragments to drop odds on a long stack or driving AKs ahead of your CVs to soak off air attacks. Those are expoits of game combat engine.

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 25
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 11:50:27 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2847
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
It is basic counter intelligence... nothing more, so fair to use IMO...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 26
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 12:47:14 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


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



But were those games out of proportion due solely to a-historical play by the Allied player? Or did other factors - skill level of the players, tactical/strategic decisions by either/both players - also have an impact?
I do not understand why so many of those who chose to play Japan insist on a-historical benefits while at the same time acknowledging that the game will end in the historical result.



When in any game will the Allied player be forced to consider the civilian populations of Singapore, Batavia or Manila and offer those locations relatively free of charge to the Japanese player?

Instead we regularly see protracted sieges in those locations that would have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians....which is the primary reason Singapore and Java capitulated as quickly as they did.




_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 27
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 1:04:38 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

The fact that Q-Ball calls them tricks makes them gamey IMHO.

If they were strategies or tactics it would be different.

But, If you play against him you sort or your own rules.


What is the problem with using intel deception? The Japanese get NO intel other than radio traffic messages which might be something good or might not. In the war they actually had a lot more than this.

Isn't the goal of a player on either side to attempt to improve upon historical results while having fun doing it? Veiling your intentions takes many forms in game. This is just a small part of it, and in no way detracts from the experience of either side. It should make the game MORE interesting, and more like real intel, as stated above, where players have to sift through carefully and make some sense of what is happening.


It like it is with all this discussions. Those who only play the Allied call everything to get Japans position less worse gamey.
Those who only play Japan see everything even remotely squeezed out of the engine es legitimate as well.

I guess some AFB want to force Japan to move exactly as IRL, so they can intercept the KB in Midway and don't have to worry after that any more. The Japanese instead want to find a way to win the war militarily...

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 28
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 1:14:33 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


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



But were those games out of proportion due solely to a-historical play by the Allied player? Or did other factors - skill level of the players, tactical/strategic decisions by either/both players - also have an impact?
I do not understand why so many of those who chose to play Japan insist on a-historical benefits while at the same time acknowledging that the game will end in the historical result.



When in any game will the Allied player be forced to consider the civilian populations of Singapore, Batavia or Manila and offer those locations relatively free of charge to the Japanese player?

Instead we regularly see protracted sieges in those locations that would have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians....which is the primary reason Singapore and Java capitulated as quickly as they did.






When in any game will the Japanese player be forced to confront the actual over-whelming logistical and man-power restraints that prevented Japan from invading India and Australia, and over-running all of China, in real life?
Again, why do those who play the Japanese side insist that rationalizing a-historical "what-ifs" is legitimate for Japan, but not for the Allied side?

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 29
RE: Confusing Allied Intel - 6/29/2012 1:18:41 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


I guess some AFB want to force Japan to move exactly as IRL, so they can intercept the KB in Midway and don't have to worry after that any more. The Japanese instead want to find a way to win the war militarily...



Trust me...the Japanese player can lose all six CV's in KB in one fell swoop on May 15, 1942 without having to go to Midway, and in spite of knowing exactly where the American carriers are...at least while playing DBB Scen 28 v C against Mundy....well played my friend... well played.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Confusing Allied Intel Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.209