Fooling SIGINT and maybe breaking it.

[Smeulders]

In my current PBEM, my opponent is doing his best to reduce the impact of Allied SIGINT as best as he can. There are 2 important ways the Japanese player can do this.

1) Don't prepare troops for invasion targets. There isn't any problem with this, it's basically trading surprise for weaker ground troops.
2) Give troop convoys different destinations than their intended targets while loading. This can be done because AFAIK as I know, the only message you ever get is 'Unit loaded on transport with destination XXXX', so load up a unit with destination Tokyo and once at sea you turn the convoy around and move to the base you want to invade. Again, I don't really have a problem with this. This is basically giving sealed orders to your TF commanders that they open once at sea, so SIGINT can't intercept. As Allied player, you will still get the news that units are shipping out, so you know something is up. In my game the link between units shipped to random bases and large-scale invasions in the DEI became obvious pretty soon.

However, there may be a problem with this way of fooling the SIGINT. I have yet to see a message saying "Unit loaded on transport with destination hex xx,yy". Now, this may be because my opponent always gives bases as temporary destination, but if this is because the message simply isn't in the game, this might be a problem. This means that any and all SIGINT about LCU transportation can easily be blocked by the Japanese player, without any penalty. Just use the hex just before your actual target as the destination hex while loading and switch it the day of arrival and there is no detour and no message about units being moved.

Of course, there still is the possibility that I'm wrong and that hex targets show up in SIGINT, if anyone has seen this, disregard the thread. If it is true, this seems like stuff for a house rule.

[castor troy]

I wouldn´t agree on 1 at all. A major invasion with two or three divisions landing somewhere taking 50% losses from the non prepared landing on day one and fighting an enemy that probably is fully prepped for his target he wants to defend? Trust me, SIGINT or not if it´s an important target there is a stiff resistance, no matter if sigint or not. Of course, in the first couple of months with the rather off amphibious bonus for the Japanese (if the Japanese get such a bonus exactly THEN they should only get it when being prepared) and with more or less all targets being empty anyway this could work perhaps.

But later on...

[Smeulders]

When I'm saying not a problem, I mean from the perspective of SIGINT. If you want to take the risk of not preparing your troops, go right ahead. I wouldn't do it myself either.

[LoBaron]

I think SIGINT is a nice thing to play with as the attacker as it is for the defender.

You don´t even need to keep from planning. Just plan for a couple of wildly different targets at the same time,
as long as you stay within the limit of believability. The only thing your opponent does not need to know is your timing. [;)]

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I think SIGINT is a nice thing to play with as the attacker as it is for the defender.

I second that, prep some troops for some vital island and hope it fools your opponent to place troops somewhere you are not going.

[Grit]

The Allies used all kinds of elaborate deception during WWII. War is not suppose to be a fair fight, you are fighting to win. If it were me I would suck it up and try my best to fool him.

About 25 years ago I remember seeing an old grizzled detective show a murder suspect a thumbprint that was taken off a bloody knife. He implied that the thumbprint belonged to the suspect, it didn't. The suspect confessed, the confession was admitted in court, and it was held up on appeal.

Life is not fair, once you realize that, life will be a lot easier.

[topeverest]

Agree with Caster Troy, you need to prep troops for invasions. The losses otherwise are considerably higher on well defended bases. But preping for mutliple base targets is advisable, as it setting intermediate aggregation points for convoys as is sending troops on 'fake' parallel invasions. As the agressor, I agree there are as many ways to 'fool' Signal intel as there are to be 'caught' by it.

[Feinder]

For what it's worth, if the Allied player compiles a lot of SigInt, it's pretty easy to spot irregularities and red-herrings.

In my 2 long-running PBEM games in WitP (both into 1944), I kept ~every~ sigint report from 12-07 to current. They all got loaded into a spreadsheet (similar to Bodhi's Utility). Esp in late 43 and 44, when I was on the offensive, having 3 years of reports, I could search on a base name, pull all the records for that base, I could pretty much pinpoint exactly what was there, and for how long it was there.

Red-Herrings - (* shrug *). There can be some value, depending on how jumpy the Allied player is. Frankly, during the first 9 months or so, Allies (in WitP) are in triage mode. Getting a notice that somebody is prepping for Honolulu can be "concerning", but frankly pretty much EVERYTHING is threated in the first 9 months. If sigint pops that a division is prepped for Noumea - "well duh". If I got multiple notificiation that 3 divisions were prepping for Honolulu for several weeks... Fine. Are they Kwangtung (disregard). Are they Burma Army? That's worth considering. But from my observation (again, in WitP),

getting an attack notice of Japan during first 9 months - Oh well. Generally not surprising, and as Allies, you've already predetermined your strong-points anyway. Notice that he's going to attack a throw-away = shrug. Notice that he's going to attack an Alamo = You're going to defend it anyway.

getting an attack notice of Japan during the next 6 months of potential stalemate - no denying is useful. But again, you're going to release what you don't care about anyway, and your strong points are probably safe by now.

getting an attack notice of Japan during Allied offensive phase - means he forgot to reset his prep orders.

Not sending your convoys directly to your destination (throwing off siging) - helpful. But a lot of times (as Allied), there isn't time to put an asset in place to intercept (or you won't get a message at all, given that sigint is for the entire map - the odds of a single convoy showing up in sigint in a given turn is pretty slim).

-F-

[witpqs]

I have seen messages about a unit being on a ship (not loading) and heading to particular destination.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: Grit

The Allies used all kinds of elaborate deception during WWII. War is not suppose to be a fair fight, you are fighting to win. If it were me I would suck it up and try my best to fool him.

Just to be clear, I have no problem at all being fooled by wrong destinations, strange preparations, etc. The problem is that as far as I have seen there are no reports on units being shipped to a hex location that isn't a base. (And it may just be that this just hasn't occured in my games so far). If this is the case, the Japanese player has the option of simply turning off a good deal of the Allies SIGINT and that is no longer misdirection.

[khyberbill]

The problem is that as far as I have seen there are no reports on units being shipped to a hex location that isn't a base.

I do this all the time, and not to fool anyone, but to bring TF's from different bases together prior to an invasion.

[SqzMyLemon]

I'm the opponent [:)].

Just to be clear, and I've explained my reasonings to Smeulders in an e-mail. I prep units for objectives if warranted. When I mentioned I don't always prep for a target, it's usually a small island lightly held by Allied support units, a recon base for example. Why prep a Naval Guard unit, giving away it's target, for such a low risk operation? If on the other hand, the target is Soerabaja, Darwin, Suva or Pearl Harbor, I'd be prepping my units in anticipation of a strong Allied defence. Another example is why prep for a lightly held Kalidjati on Java, when my real target is Soerabaja? I'll take my lumps hitting the beaches at Kalidjati of course, but that risk is minimal if lightly defended...as it was. My units can prep for Soerabaja before hand, or after I land at Kalidjati, once they are on the island it's pretty obvious where they will end up going anyway. Prepping for a target doesn't mean you have to land there, unless it's located in only one hex, or the only base on an island. All my units are prepped 100% for Soerabaja which is the primary target, despite the fact I never landed there. Seems like a plan to me [;)].

Feinder makes a good point too, we generally know the soft and tough targets, so no matter what devious plans the Japanese side has, the Allied player generally knows where we are headed or at least need to go in most cases anyway and can defend appropriately. So misdirection can only go so far [:D].

As far as not always picking a base as a destination, I am like Khyberbill. It's often to concentrate various TF's before they go in, or to prevent a TF from being one or two hexes short prior to landing, possibly allowing another day for an Allied interdiction, confusing SIGINT is secondary in my opinion. Considering the intel I generally get is a "high volume of radio traffic" at best, I'll do whatever I can within reason to misdirect my intentions.

I know the intention of Smeulders' post is on another issue all together really, I just thought I'd provide enlightenment from my perspective for clarification.

An interesting discussion!