Inaccurate SIGINT?

[Aerosol2207]

I am wondering whether and to what extent SIGINT can be inaccurate. In my current game as Allies vs AI (Grand Campaign, currently in September 1942) I have experienced a situation where I received a report of a planned attack on Enderbury Island, only for the actual IJN invasion force to arrive at nearby Canton. Very cool and feels to me like it reflects real world ambiguities in deciphering enemy intentions with imperfect intercept information.

But I have just received a report on my most recent turn of a DD (Ariake) callsign being triangulated to hex 53,176 which puts him way down with the penguins. I want to discount this and not have it interrupt my plans by forcing me to send a TF on a goose chase halfway to Antartica... but...... I am slightly paranoid because I do recall receiving SIGINT way back in December 1941 or thereabouts that a Japanese fleet HQ unit had set Auckland as an objective, which I assume means that subsidiary units had done the same. Seems like a whacky objective but I have heard there are AI lines that do such things. So far, my robot opponent has played a competent match, sticking to realistic objectives and showing an uncanny ability to set ambushes while avoiding those I set. I would sort of have my immersion shaken a bit if he were to waste increasingly scarce IJN/IJA resources on a pointless adventure in Kiwiland. But perhaps it is just an anomalous report afterall.... Thoughts?

[Platoonist]

I am slightly paranoid because I do recall receiving SIGINT way back in December 1941 or thereabouts that a Japanese fleet HQ unit had set Auckland as an objective, which I assume means that subsidiary units had done the same. Seems like a whacky objective but I have heard there are AI lines that do such things.

I've seen the Japanese AI set its eyes on Auckland before. Never seen it materialize as anything, but complacency is the AI's biggest asset.

[Bella]

I am slightly paranoid because I do recall receiving SIGINT way back in December 1941 or thereabouts that a Japanese fleet HQ unit had set Auckland as an objective, which I assume means that subsidiary units had done the same. Seems like a whacky objective but I have heard there are AI lines that do such things.

I've seen the Japanese AI set its eyes on Auckland before. Never seen it materialize as anything, but complacency is the AI's biggest asset.

I have had that Auckland report, too. But I’ve also had recce planes spotting half a dozen IJN ships off San Francisco. I believe a certain percentage of SIGINT and scout reports are intentionally included to represent human error, fog of war, etc. it’s fun.

[lopec]

If you look in the editor AI files I seem to recall a lot of AI scripts targeting Auckland...I expect its for some mechanical gameplay reason. In my AI games I've never seen the Japanese attack Auckland in any capacity.

[Bella]

If you look in the editor AI files I seem to recall a lot of AI scripts targeting Auckland...I expect its for some mechanical gameplay reason. In my AI games I've never seen the Japanese attack Auckland in any capacity.

Strategically speaking, going after Auckland before securing at least Guadalcanal, Espiritu Santo and Noumea is a good way to lose the entire invading force.

[CaptBeefheart]

I've done an Ironman or two where the AI did invade Kiwiland. Usually you get something like "44th Division/4 heading to Gisbourne" with about four days' notice. HQ units stuck in Manchuria planning for places like Auckland can be considered as clever disinformation. The "planning for" Sigint statements can easily create the wrong impression.

I can't remember the player (John III?), but one clever IJ player would set the final destination of his invasion TF to a base he had no intention of visiting, while a waypoint was set close to the real target. For example, you'd get "44th Division/4 heading to Gisbourne" but he'd be really sending the TF to a waypoint near Ceylon. You're panicking about NZ while he takes Colombo.

Cheers,
CB

[Rob322]

I'm sure it's intentionally inaccurate to some degree. Early on, there were tons of crazy reports along say the US West Coast about Japanese fleets, aircraft, troop ships, false reports of landings, bombings, etc and a very occasional real incident (the Japanese sub shelling an oil facility near Santa Barbara in a total one-off event) that freaked people out further. Really, the AI has a few things to try and keep you honest and keep some of your interior forces on alert.

And actually, sometimes the AI does some weird things. I've watched them sail a CV fleet east and to the north of Hawaii and then angle SE as if it's trying to interdict convoys between the EC and Pearl and then have them turn NW and cruise past Adak on the way home. I've seen that happen a few times now. Could be a mod thing but the game does try to keep you on your toes, keep you setting patrols to guard against random possibilities and give you a little bit of healthy paranoia which the real commanders back then would've had.

[CaptBeefheart]

The AI tends to run CV TFs in patterns. Once you figure the pattern out, you can either avoid it or gang up on it.

Cheers,
CB

[Platoonist]

The AI tends to run CV TFs in patterns. Once you figure the pattern out, you can either avoid it or gang up on it.

Yeah, it's hard to pass up once you spot the cycle.

[RangerJoe]

The AI tends to run CV TFs in patterns. Once you figure the pattern out, you can either avoid it or gang up on it.

Yeah, it's hard to pass up once you spot the cycle.

It is terrible when the Prince of Wales in a surface combat task force surprises a Japanese aircraft carrier and hits with 4 14" shells in the initial combat yet does not sink the Zuikaku.