Intel, do you use it?

Bald Michael · Post by **Bald Michael** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:01 pm

The curmudgeon said I need to use "isentropic" to be really impressive.

Canoerebel · Post by **Canoerebel** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:03 pm

[&o]

Bald Michael · Post by **Bald Michael** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:05 pm

I tried to sail the juggernaut through the labyrinth but a IJN Midget Submarine sank it.

Bullwinkle58 · Post by **Bullwinkle58** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:29 pm

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're half way to impressing. To get all the way, you also have to use "curmudgeon" and "isentropic."

Indubitably.

crsutton · Post by **crsutton** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:15 pm

Is it just me or was this thread DOA about six posts ago? [;)]

anarchyintheuk · Post by **anarchyintheuk** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:21 pm

It's thread-relatedness has diminished but the entertainment value is still solid.

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:52 pm

I had no idea the intel was that good at times. I was accustomed to "1,243,321 troops at Takao"

There goes another 10 minutes of my life for evey turn.

witpqs · Post by **witpqs** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:01 pm

If you use Tracker in the manner I suggested it's about 15 seconds unless you see something to dig into. Provided that you are already using Tracker for other stuff.

bush · Post by **bush** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:31 pm

Playing against AI I do not use it.

themetalcrow · Post by **themetalcrow** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:38 pm

im thinking about buying this game, but $90 is no joke for me. i really like that intelligence isn't completely accurate, but is there any way in game to make it more accurate? or is it always completely unreliable?
if it's never reliable, doesn't that make it a pointless feature?

thanks garrett

witpqs · Post by **witpqs** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:51 pm

ORIGINAL: themetalcrow

im thinking about buying this game, but $90 is no joke for me. i really like that intelligence isn't completely accurate, but is there any way in game to make it more accurate? or is it always completely unreliable?
if it's never reliable, doesn't that make it a pointless feature?

thanks garrett

There is a SigInt report that you get each turn. As far as I know there is no way for you to influence the contents of that report. There are Coast Watcher reports. As far as I know there is no way to influence those.

However, I have seen some other things. I have seen in (I think it was) the Operations Reports messages indicating that a certain search plane had detected radio transmissions in a somewhat nearby hex. The same might occur with subs and ships, I just don't recall seeing it.

When you get either SigInt reports or search plane radio intercepts like the one I described above, there will usually be an icon placed on the map. Not the large overview map, just the regular map. That will show you the hex location.

So, the answer to your question is yes, you can put out more search assets and give yourself a little bit better chance of picking up Intel. Definitely use planes, but I feel sure the same applies to ships and subs as well.

Canoerebel · Post by **Canoerebel** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:53 pm

Certain aspects about intel are always reliable, some are vague, and some are subject to manipulation by a cagey enemy. I don't think there's anything you can do to make it more reliable, but with experience you'll become more adept at reading it.

Here are some examples:

1. Always reliable (as far as I know): (a) There are xxx troops at yyy; (b) XXX Unit is aboard YYY Maru bound for Port ZZZ; XXX Unit is prepping for YYY Base.

2. Vague: Major radio transmissions at hex xx/yy. It's hard to know whether that's the KB, a combat TF, or a delusion.

3. Subject to manipulation: See Item 1(b) above, that is supposedly always reliable? Well, a cagey player can load a unit aboard a Maru, set the target as some distant and deceiving port, and then unload at a waypoint somewhere else. Cagey, cagey, and difficult to unravel, but great fun.

Anybody can read SigInt and get good information from it, but with experience you'll get better at using it and using against your opponent. It's a really fun part of the game, at least if you're the Allied player.

themetalcrow · Post by **themetalcrow** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:11 pm

so it can be reliable, and effected by the player?

when i say intel, im also talking about recon.

is recon worthwhile, or is it other intel stuff this thread is talking about as being pretty unreliable?

garrett

Canoerebel · Post by **Canoerebel** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:15 pm

Reconnaissance and patroling are important aspects of the game. You can influence them through the quality and quanitity of the forces committed, size of the area patrolled, weather effects, etc.

Reconnaissance can be done by a variety of aircraft, but the actual recon units are best at it. Patroling can likewise be done by a variety of types of aircraft, but those trained to do the job are the best at it.

So, a squadron well-trained in the mission and flying the type of plane suitable for the mission and flying said mission repeatedly at reasonable distances and in good weather will provide far more reliable info than would a poorly trained squadron flying occasionally.

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:58 pm

The appearance of a Val dive bomber over your carrier force is a highly reliable indicator of enemy carriers about.

Dedicated photo-recon aircraft (like the P-38 recon version) build highly reliable intel very quickly in only a few days worth of sorties.

PBY drivers still wearing pull-ups will take MUCH longer.

Jap Glen-equipped subs seem to be a little too good.

Mynok · Post by **Mynok** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:09 pm

Glens might very well be much better than in real life, but they also die in droves when doing recon missions. It is essentially kamikaze recon.

Cap Mandrake · Post by **Cap Mandrake** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:12 pm

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Glens might very well be much better than in real life, but they also die in droves when doing recon missions. It is essentially kamikaze recon.

I am filled with a warm glow. Presumably it is the good news about the Glens. I hope I didn't eat another Polonium 210 sandwich.

bradfordkay · Post by **bradfordkay** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:22 pm

Sometimes the intel is spot on - at least for the allies. Part of teh game is deciding which intel you want to put stock in.

If you are playing against the AI, you can be assured that "Unit X is planning to attack location Y" is spot on. Against a human it could mean that your opponent has given one of his units that location as its "planning target" but has no intentions whatsoever to actually attack that place. Consider that a "The Man Who Never Was" type intel trick.

If you receive a message "Unit X is on ship Y headed for location Z" you can be assured that this is good intel. Uhnfortunately you do not have any idea of where that ship is in its trip to that location, so it can be a crap shoot if you try to intercept that shipment.

Those above discussed types of messages are for the allied player only. The Japanese player gets "radio transmissions are detected at Pearl Harbor" type messages.

bradfordkay · Post by **bradfordkay** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:24 pm

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Certain aspects about intel are always reliable, some are vague, and some are subject to manipulation by a cagey enemy. I don't think there's anything you can do to make it more reliable, but with experience you'll become more adept at reading it.

Here are some examples:

1. Always reliable (as far as I know): (a) There are xxx troops at yyy; (b) XXX Unit is aboard YYY Maru bound for Port ZZZ; XXX Unit is prepping for YYY Base.

2. Vague: Major radio transmissions at hex xx/yy. It's hard to know whether that's the KB, a combat TF, or a delusion.

3. Subject to manipulation: See Item 1(b) above, that is supposedly always reliable? Well, a cagey player can load a unit aboard a Maru, set the target as some distant and deceiving port, and then unload at a waypoint somewhere else. Cagey, cagey, and difficult to unravel, but great fun.

Anybody can read SigInt and get good information from it, but with experience you'll get better at using it and using against your opponent. It's a really fun part of the game, at least if you're the Allied player.

BTW Dan, our mutual opponent is good at playing those games. fair warning...

AcePylut · Post by **AcePylut** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:38 pm

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Sometimes the intel is spot on - at least for the allies. Part of teh game is deciding which intel you want to put stock in.

If you are playing against the AI, you can be assured that "Unit X is planning to attack location Y" is spot on. Against a human it could mean that your opponent has given one of his units that location as its "planning target" but has no intentions whatsoever to actually attack that place. Consider that a "The Man Who Never Was" type intel trick.

If you receive a message "Unit X is on ship Y headed for location Z" you can be assured that this is good intel. Uhnfortunately you do not have any idea of where that ship is in its trip to that location, so it can be a crap shoot if you try to intercept that shipment.

Those above discussed types of messages are for the allied player only. The Japanese player gets "radio transmissions are detected at Pearl Harbor" type messages.

This is where 'you, yourself' need to be... cagier. You may receive that message, and alone, it means nothing. But if you could combine that with other intel reports over various days... it may add up to something.

For example:

Assume the Japs have Rabaul, PM, Lunga, but not Noumea, and it's early-mid 42, and these are the intel reports I see.

Day 1 (filtering out the other 20-30 nothings): Heavy radio xmissions reported (120 m S of tokyo - I forget the hex)

Day 3: radio xmissions at a location to the south, that matches an approximate transport travel distance of the day-1 sighting

Day 4: 2nd Snlf is planning an attack on Noumea

Day 5: 1024 men located at Rabaul

Day 6: unit xxxx (Jap division) in planning an attack on Noumea (and lets say the allies know that these two units are together, perhaps from a previous combat a couple months ago or such)

Day 9: Coastwatchers spot 5 ships at Rabaul

Day 13: Japanese Infantry Division is on a ship heading to Port Moresby.

Day 20: 45,000 men located at rabual
Coastwatchers spot 45 ships at Rabaul.

What do you make of that? To me, it tells me that a large amount of japanese troops have moved into the Solomons in force, and he is thinking about going after Noumea.

Or maybe he's just messing with me, and those are reserve troops that are feinting towards Noumea, when he's really going to NE Oz.

Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?

RE: Intel, do you use it?