Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Intel reports

 
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 >> RE: Intel reports Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Intel reports - 10/29/2010 12:29:09 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I have a better idea. Let's play with the actual intel that both side had...nah, we'd better not. Nobody would be willing to play Japan.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 61
RE: Intel reports - 10/29/2010 11:48:56 AM   
d0mbo

 

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

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

War History has a point the Japanese knew AF was short of water.   


But that message was sent in the clear by the allies! I think the game models this fine with the "radio traffic detected at xxx,xxx"!

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 62
RE: Intel reports - 10/29/2010 3:20:27 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: d0mbo


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

War History has a point the Japanese knew AF was short of water.   


But that message was sent in the clear by the allies! I think the game models this fine with the "radio traffic detected at xxx,xxx"!


In total agreement with you Dombo, The Japanese got very little intel and in the case of Midway's water distilling Pearl wanted them to have it. If Tokyo had any capable intel at all they would have known that Guadalcanal was more than a reconnaissance in force and wouldn't have sent the Ichiki and Aoba into a buzzsaw. The same could be said for what the AIF had at Milne Bay to a lesser extent. There is no basis for War Historys claims and on page 53 of his manual provided
it shows he could be playing his game wrong by giving the japanese the same intelligence apparatus the Allies had atleast the way I read in the manual although my reading comprehension is woeful . A case could be made that Japanese get much more intel in this game than they had in WW2 because when they have the initiative all force strength is known.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 10/29/2010 3:33:13 PM >

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to d0mbo)
Post #: 63
RE: Intel reports - 10/29/2010 4:58:48 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Also I would like to see messages in Operations report that say for example, why ordered strike didnt fly (for example):
Unit XY aborted mission because of bad weather over target
Unit XY mission scrubbed because of low clouds over home airfield
Unit XY mission scrubbed because the pilots had hang over

Bombers from Unit XY turned back because escort fighters didnt arrived
Bombers from Unit XY turned back because of strong enemy opposition.

Sometimes one could miss such messages while watching replay, and on the other hand, sometimes they are not even written - so a comander doesnt know why his orders werent carried out...


_____________________________


(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 64
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 12:13:49 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

It's easy to denigrade japanese intelligence, when most of the war time documents are lost and western historians can't read them anyway...



No..., what makes it easy to denigrate Japanese code breaking intelligence is it's total failure to provide Japanese commanders with any useful and timely information. It's easy to come up with "intel coups" that allowed the Allies to "bushwack" Japanese operations---Midway and the Bismarck Sea come to mind readily.

But where are the Japanese "intel victories"? Apparently "Tokyo Rose" knew about the Kiska landings..., but where is the evidence that the Imperial Navy had any warning? Seems at the vary least they would have sent additional subs to the area if they KNEW the landings were going to take place. Nothing!

Japanese code breaking sucked! End of story.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 65
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 1:08:01 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I have never seen an item that good.


That's because you didn't sacrifice a bucket of chicken to the random number gods.

BAWK!

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 66
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 1:11:05 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
War History has a point the Japanese knew AF was short of water.   


Do you realize that 99.999% of the population has no idea what this means? Today, just a handful of historians, a few in the military, and a bunch of history buffs and AE (and similar games) people know.

Yes, we lucky few. The true, the proud, the dorkwads.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 67
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 1:36:28 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
War History has a point the Japanese knew AF was short of water.   


Do you realize that 99.999% of the population has no idea what this means? Today, just a handful of historians, a few in the military, and a bunch of history buffs and AE (and similar games) people know.

Yes, we lucky few. The true, the proud, the dorkwads.


I suggest that we quit associating with those ignorant sods until they get their heads out of "reality" TV and start learning something about REALITY! If only there were enough of us for them to notice the boycott....

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 68
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 4:07:21 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
War History has a point the Japanese knew AF was short of water.


Do you realize that 99.999% of the population has no idea what this means? Today, just a handful of historians, a few in the military, and a bunch of history buffs and AE (and similar games) people know.


Yes. Really funny observation. If the ratio really is 1:100000, then there should be about 3000 potential AE players in the US

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 69
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 6:07:45 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It's easy to come up with "intel coups" that allowed the Allies to "bushwack" Japanese operations---Midway and the Bismarck Sea come to mind readily.



Yamamoto......

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 70
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 10:23:08 PM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It's easy to come up with "intel coups" that allowed the Allies to "bushwack" Japanese operations---Midway and the Bismarck Sea come to mind readily.



Yamamoto......


Peleliu, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima (we will have it in 10 days with a minimum of casualties), First Salvo Island......

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 71
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 11:01:37 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History




quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It's easy to come up with "intel coups" that allowed the Allies to "bushwack" Japanese operations---Midway, shooting down Yamamoto, and the Bismarck Sea come to mind readily.




Peleliu, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima (we will have it in 10 days with a minimum of casualties), First Salvo Island......



Would you care to explain how ANY of your examples qualify as Japanese code breaking coups? Failures of Allied intel perhaps, but hardly Japanese code breaking successes. Savo Island? Yes, it was a Japanese tactical success, but hardly based on code breaking. The US landings their came as a total surprise to the Japs. And it was two months into the campaign for Guadalcanal before the Japs finally figured out that the Marines were there in Divisional strength. Their intel sucked!

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 72
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 11:14:19 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It's easy to come up with "intel coups" that allowed the Allies to "bushwack" Japanese operations---Midway and the Bismarck Sea come to mind readily.



Yamamoto......


I'll rephrase, in case my one word message is not clear. The assassination of Isoruku Yamamoto was a direct result in extremely detailed information gathered from Allied code breakers.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 73
RE: Intel reports - 10/30/2010 11:17:07 PM   
RUDOLF


Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I have a better idea. Let's play with the actual intel that both side had...nah, we'd better not. Nobody would be willing to play Japan.



Not all the Intel they had was bad.

_____________________________

http://wikileaks.org/

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 74
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:32:24 AM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: War History




quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It's easy to come up with "intel coups" that allowed the Allies to "bushwack" Japanese operations---Midway, shooting down Yamamoto, and the Bismarck Sea come to mind readily.




Peleliu, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima (we will have it in 10 days with a minimum of casualties), First Salvo Island......



Would you care to explain how ANY of your examples qualify as Japanese code breaking coups? Failures of Allied intel perhaps, but hardly Japanese code breaking successes. Savo Island? Yes, it was a Japanese tactical success, but hardly based on code breaking. The US landings their came as a total surprise to the Japs. And it was two months into the campaign for Guadalcanal before the Japs finally figured out that the Marines were there in Divisional strength. Their intel sucked!



Didn't say they were. Just examples of allied failures. Midway wasn't exactly a code breaking coup either truth be told, if it was Nimitz would have known about the Aleutian operations (which he didn't). If it wasn't for 1 code breaker remembering "AF" from months ago and Nimitz's faith in it being true (or perhaps he figured if Midway wasn't the target then no harm no foul), Midway would never have happened either.

Ed: What if "AO" had been Pearl Harbor instead of Dutch Harbor and "AF" was the diversion?

< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 12:40:46 AM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 75
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 12:47:42 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: War History




quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

It's easy to come up with "intel coups" that allowed the Allies to "bushwack" Japanese operations---Midway, shooting down Yamamoto, and the Bismarck Sea come to mind readily.




Peleliu, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima (we will have it in 10 days with a minimum of casualties), First Salvo Island......



Would you care to explain how ANY of your examples qualify as Japanese code breaking coups? Failures of Allied intel perhaps, but hardly Japanese code breaking successes. Savo Island? Yes, it was a Japanese tactical success, but hardly based on code breaking. The US landings their came as a total surprise to the Japs. And it was two months into the campaign for Guadalcanal before the Japs finally figured out that the Marines were there in Divisional strength. Their intel sucked!



Didn't say they were. Just examples of allied failures. Midway wasn't exactly a code breaking coup either truth be told, if it was Nimitz would have known about the Aleutian operations (which he didn't). If it wasn't for 1 code breaker remembering "AF" from months ago and Nimitz's faith in it being true (or perhaps he figured if Midway wasn't the target then no harm no foul), Midway would never have happened either.


Ummm..... The US knew every ship that was in the force. They knew the target was "AF". They didn't know "AF" was Midway, but thought it was. Having Midway broadcast, in plain language, that they were short of water, and reading the Japanese response was how they identified "AF". I'm fairly certain the US knew about the Aleutian diversion and chose to ignore it, but am not 100% certain. There wasn't someone who remembered what "AF" was, and Nimitz didn't have to have faith. They could read most of the Japanese codes, most of the time.

I don't know how you identify an intel success, but 99.99% of folks view the Midway operation an intel success.

The early '42 carrier raids on pacific islands were because the US knew the Japanese CV's were no where nearby. Coral Sea happened because the US knew that Lex and York would be facing an equal force, not the entire KB, etc etc etc etc etc etc.......

Hell, the first Japanese ship sunk in the war was a result of intel. Some submarine was sunk by a US submarine because it was right on schedule.

As Mike has been asking, name one instance where Japanese intel gave them a victory or success somewhere.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 76
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 1:21:50 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		War History,

I'm having trouble with your Midway bit. You say that Midway was not a code-breaking success, because if things were different than they were, then it wouldn't have been a success! Oh yeah, and there were some things about the operation that they didn't know, therefore it wasn't a success.

But when IJ figured out through various means that an invasion fleet was on the way, even though it was obvious that one would be eventually so they knew to watch for it, and even though there is no evidence that they figured it out from code-breaking as opposed to other intelligence methods, you say that is an example of a code-breaking success.

I think you are being inconsistent about things.

I do agree that IJ intel is probably weak in the game compared to IRL. However, Allied intel is definitely very weak in the game compared to IRL.

I don't know any way that you can fix it when playing the AI, but I have a suggestion for PBM, although it requires the cooperation of your Allied opponent. Set up a procedure where each turn you generate two random numbers. If the first one is above a certain value (agreed in advance with your opponent), you look at the second number. Index that second number against the database of Allied ships in the scenario. Give your opponent the name of the ship the number refers to, and he is required to give you it's current hex location.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 77
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 2:47:57 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I don't know any way that you can fix it when playing the AI, but I have a suggestion for PBM, although it requires the cooperation of your Allied opponent. Set up a procedure where each turn you generate two random numbers. If the first one is above a certain value (agreed in advance with your opponent), you look at the second number. Index that second number against the database of Allied ships in the scenario. Give your opponent the name of the ship the number refers to, and he is required to give you it's current hex location.


I thought the example someone showed earlier (CV Zuikaku is headed to xx/yy) is pretty good intelligence. To be useful, only capital ships should (or mostly capital ships) be used, and maybe even give the exact TF composition. Maybe have those tidbits show up quite a bit more often in the game, since IRL Allied code breaking was pretty fantastic. That's pretty good intel. It could even be coded for the Japanese side to get 1/10th of the same data.

Anyway, my opinion of the games depiction of Allied codebreaking went up dramatically once I saw the CV Zuikaku example.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 78
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 4:17:34 AM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

War History,

I'm having trouble with your Midway bit. You say that Midway was not a code-breaking success, because if things were different than they were, then it wouldn't have been a success! Oh yeah, and there were some things about the operation that they didn't know, therefore it wasn't a success.

But when IJ figured out through various means that an invasion fleet was on the way, even though it was obvious that one would be eventually so they knew to watch for it, and even though there is no evidence that they figured it out from code-breaking as opposed to other intelligence methods, you say that is an example of a code-breaking success.

I think you are being inconsistent about things.

I do agree that IJ intel is probably weak in the game compared to IRL. However, Allied intel is definitely very weak in the game compared to IRL.

I don't know any way that you can fix it when playing the AI, but I have a suggestion for PBM, although it requires the cooperation of your Allied opponent. Set up a procedure where each turn you generate two random numbers. If the first one is above a certain value (agreed in advance with your opponent), you look at the second number. Index that second number against the database of Allied ships in the scenario. Give your opponent the name of the ship the number refers to, and he is required to give you it's current hex location.


If Midway were indeed the "success" that everyone thinks it was, why didn't the allies know the names of the ships and their target of the Aleutian force? Wasn't this sent in the same codes as the Midway force? And where please is it written that the Midway force ship IDs were known and target? Not saying it doesn't exist, but I certainly have never seen it. Have you?

Midway was the presumed target "AF". It was estimated that 4 carriers would spearhead the assault. Now as for allied intel being weaker than historical, I would agree with that statement. The allies for the most part knew every Japanese formation and its commanders, where they were, where they were going (but not in all cases and not always when they needed this info). I am not disputing any of this.

My contention is that the Japanese player in the GAME deserves more than "heavy volume of radio signals at San Francisco". And the other examples of failures I pointed out to show that the allies indeed did not know everything, that their information was as faulty on occasion as it was accurate at other times. Seemingly some people seem to think everything the allies did in the war was based on rock solid intel, and this simply was not the case.

The simple FACT that Tokyo Rose on occasion after occasion reported forces that were heading to a beachead shows the Japanese player SHOULD BE awarded some kind of signals intel in the game. That FACT can not be disputed. (Ed: except by AFBs that dispute any kind of a change that would make the game more even or in other words "help" the Japanese player without justification for their opposition).

< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 4:22:51 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 79
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 5:26:16 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

My contention is that the Japanese player in the GAME deserves more than "heavy volume of radio signals at San Francisco". No he doesn't. Radio traffic analysis was pretty much the only souce of intel the Japanese had.And the other examples of failures I pointed out to show that the allies indeed did not know everything, that their information was as faulty on occasion as it was accurate at other times. Have you seen the "intel" the Allied player gets? It's hardly all inclusive, and certainly not as good as they recieved in real life.Seemingly some people seem to think everything the allies did in the war was based on rock solid intel, and this simply was not the case. I don't think you can show that anyone is asking for anything of the sort.

The simple FACT that Tokyo Rose on occasion after occasion reported forces that were heading to a beachead shows the Japanese player SHOULD BE awarded some kind of signals intel in the game. That FACT can not be disputed. (Ed: except by AFBs that dispute any kind of a change that would make the game more even or in other words "help" the Japanese player without justification for their opposition). The only FACT that can be proved in any way is that the Japanese NEVER in the entire war got any code breaking intelligence that they could make military use of. That is the fact...


(in reply to War History)
Post #: 80
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 5:37:17 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

If Midway were indeed the "success" that everyone thinks it was, why didn't the allies know the names of the ships and their target of the Aleutian force? Wasn't this sent in the same codes as the Midway force? And where please is it written that the Midway force ship IDs were known and target? Not saying it doesn't exist, but I certainly have never seen it. Have you?


Your logic here is that because (you assert) they did not know about (or enough about) the Aleutians operation, that means that Midway was not a code-breaking success.

Gaining critical information about the Midway operation that allowed the destruction of 4 enemy carriers to the loss of 1 friendly carrier, plus repelling the planned enemy invasion of Midway atoll - that was NOT a success because they didn't know enough about the Aleutians operation? That is not at all logical.

1) The Midway battle was a clear and decisive Allied victory.
2) Allied code-breaking was vital to that victory, meaning that the victory would not have been secured without it.
Ergo, Midway was a major code-breaking success.

There is plenty of information available about the code-breaking efforts involved involved in the battle of Midway. I'm sure you can find lots, I am not going to go looking for you.

Bye.


(in reply to War History)
Post #: 81
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 6:52:51 AM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

The only FACT that can be proved in any way is that the Japanese NEVER in the entire war got any code breaking intelligence that they could make military use of. That is the fact...



Well, like I said earlier, there is little point in trying to prove anything to a close minded individual like you, but I will point out the Japanese announced via Tokyo Rose the Kiska landing force to the man, and they had pulled off the island 3 weeks prior to the landing. So if that doesn't count as "acting on that information" to you, I may as well just press the little green button on you right now. Have a nice life.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 82
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 7:22:13 AM   
Dobey455

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

The only FACT that can be proved in any way is that the Japanese NEVER in the entire war got any code breaking intelligence that they could make military use of. That is the fact...



Well, like I said earlier, there is little point in trying to prove anything to a close minded individual like you, but I will point out the Japanese announced via Tokyo Rose the Kiska landing force to the man, and they had pulled off the island 3 weeks prior to the landing. So if that doesn't count as "acting on that information" to you, I may as well just press the little green button on you right now. Have a nice life.


Firstly I do like the way you keep asking everyone for documented evidence of their claims while providing nothing but anecdotal evedence of your own. But that is another matter.

In regards to the passage underlined above; define announcing the landing force "To the Man". Did she name every company and platoon and the CO's name, or, as I suspect, just the parent divison \ regiment. Considering the relatively small number of units deployed in Nor Pac I don't think guessing the name of the most likely offensive formation would take much effort.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 83
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:06:03 AM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

Firstly I do like the way you keep asking everyone for documented evidence of their claims while providing nothing but anecdotal evedence of your own. But that is another matter.

In regards to the passage underlined above; define announcing the landing force "To the Man". Did she name every company and platoon and the CO's name, or, as I suspect, just the parent divison \ regiment. Considering the relatively small number of units deployed in Nor Pac I don't think guessing the name of the most likely offensive formation would take much effort.



Well I ask because I CAN document what I say:
http://canadianheroes.org/henri/the-battle-for-kiska-story.htm

4th paragraph under "Initial Panic:"

As the Canadians at Adak accustomed themselves to the harsh environment and received extensive training in battle drill, patrolling tactics, weaponry, hill climbing and amphibious assault, more than 30,000 American troops boarded heavily armed ships in California and began steaming west for what was officially still a secret mission. The success of the mission, they were told, would depend largely on the element of surprise. The men on the ships played pinochle and endless card games, told stories and wrote to sweethearts and wives as they made preparations for battle. Rumours circulated that they were bound for enemy-occupied Burma or the Japanese island of Hokkaido or maybe the Aleutian Islands. The ships made a sudden turn to the north. Any doubts about their destination were dispelled. Tokyo Rose interrupted the sweet warblings of the Andrews Sisters on shortwave radio. "All you boys headed for Kiska Island," she warned, "are in for a big surprise." She then listed their unit names, location and numbers, as well as the size of their assembling fleet at Adak, and informed the men of the exact time and date of their secret invasion.

Note: the source is Canadian.

This passage alone in my opinion is justification for the Japanese getting at least the ability to discover unit names / locations / prep targets. The other example I used is one from my father. He was in the 96th infantry division. The day they were scheduled to land at Yap, Tokyo Rose had reported the division wiped out on the beaches. My father heard this broadcast on the transport enroute to Leyte. Clearly Japanese intel knew the division was SUPPOSED to go there. Their orders were changed days before the landing to Leyte.

< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 11:12:57 AM >

(in reply to Dobey455)
Post #: 84
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:11:21 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		That would actually fall under the anecdotal evidence. It also tells us absolutely nothing about how the information was obtained by the Japanese or whether they even had the information. As someone said before, there weren't that many large formations in the Northern Pacific, if you see an invasion fleet coming there's a pretty good chance you can guess which unit is on it. Note that according to your information the Tokyo Rose announcement was only given after the turn North, it wouldn't exactly take a genius to find out where they were headed after that.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 85
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:14:03 AM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

That would actually fall under the anecdotal evidence. It also tells us absolutely nothing about how the information was obtained by the Japanese or whether they even had the information. As someone said before, there weren't that many large formations in the Northern Pacific, if you see an invasion fleet coming there's a pretty good chance you can guess which unit is on it. Note that according to your information the Tokyo Rose announcement was only given after the turn North, it wouldn't exactly take a genius to find out where they were headed after that.


Does it matter how the allies got the info in the game? No it does not. Should it matter in the game? No it should not. And you posted before my edit about the 96th at Yap. And most of the Kiska force came from California, not the Aleutians. Also, you presume that force was somehow spotted by the Japanese. What spotted them? The Japs had already pulled out of the island (presumably because they knew it was coming and they couldn't hold). Your attempt at explaining this example away fails.

< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 11:18:33 AM >

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 86
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:21:51 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Of course it matters. When my opponent sent out his last offensive against Sian, I could have told you 80% of the divisions that were that force. Why? Because I knew what was in that area from previous battles and I could see the size of the attacking force. No SigInt required. The Japanese may very well have made the same deduction about the invasion of Kiska. Do you think that because the Japanese were capable of simple deductions they should get better SigInt in game ?

I'd even grant that Japanese SigInt was better in RL than it is in the game. However, the same is true for the Allies, both sides get less information than they do in real life. If you want historical capabilities, argue for them for both sides.

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 87
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:24:30 AM   
War History

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 4/30/2010
Status: offline 		I have already said the allied capibility is below what it should have been. Suggest you know what you are saying before you say it next time ;)


< Message edited by War History -- 10/31/2010 11:38:48 AM >

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 88
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:24:32 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

That would actually fall under the anecdotal evidence. It also tells us absolutely nothing about how the information was obtained by the Japanese or whether they even had the information. As someone said before, there weren't that many large formations in the Northern Pacific, if you see an invasion fleet coming there's a pretty good chance you can guess which unit is on it. Note that according to your information the Tokyo Rose announcement was only given after the turn North, it wouldn't exactly take a genius to find out where they were headed after that.



The fact that he keeps using "Tokyo Rose" as an example, even though NO JAPANESE during the entire war ever broadcast under that name, demonstrates the "depth" of his knowledge. It's useless to argue with someone whose "facts" all come from admitted propaganda broadcasts...

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 89
RE: Intel reports - 10/31/2010 11:37:55 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: War History

I have already said the allied capibility is below what it should have been. Suggest you know what you are saying before you say it next time ;)


That's why you started the thread with the following question, to suggest Allied intel should be improved ?

quote:

Should the Japanese player get as good or nearly as good intel reports as the allied player?

(in reply to War History)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Intel reports Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

1.563