Intelligence?

[Xenophile]

I'm thinking about signals intelligence here. Battlefield and air reconnaisance seem fairly limited in comparison to the scale of the game and in any case I'm unaware of any great difference in capability between the opposing sides.

Signals intelligence - cryptanalysis/cryptography - is an area of research to which the Allies (at least the Western ones) devoted a great deal of effort and from which they sometimes reaped substantial advantage. (I'm aware that even with good intelligence, battles were lost - Crete is an example; others were won)

Quite how this effort might be modelled in the game I'm undecided - it might reveal enemy dispositions, or conceal friendly ones. It might operate tactically and give the beneficiary a combat bonus. It might reveal an enemy's production or research allocations and offer the chance to negate them.

I imagine that even if this idea is considered worth inclusion it is far too late an input to affect the 1st release but I hope it might be considered for 2.0. In any case, I'd be inerested in contrary thoughts.

[Barticus]

I agree completely. Intelligence assets are a very important strategic resource that might be modelled in the game. Perhaps as another area of research? The question becomes, however, how could the benefit of superior/inferior intelligence assets be modeled?

[BloodyBucket]

One thing that would be hard to model is the fact that the Germans didn't know that their communications were being read. Also, if the Allies acted on every piece of information they got, the Germans might have figured it out.

Since the game doesn't know the plans of the player in advance (I hope), the effect of ULTRA and humint would have to be simulated in other ways. Since unrevealed units have a large effect on movement and combat, tinkering with that aspect is probably tricky at best.

I don't know enough about what aspects of a players research, purchasing and deployments remain hidden to guess at what intel might reveal that would otherwise stay secret.

A topic worth considering, since intel played a large role in the war.

[Desert Dave]

What might be interesting is something like this:

Right-click on a HQ unit and you would get a drop down menu with several choices, such as,

1) Reconnaisance. Perhaps a previously hidden unit would show up on the map.

2) Diplomacy. The internal game odds would shift very slightly in your favor for enticing an uncommitted minor.

3) Transportation. Improvement in roads or rails and general communications (reduced MPP cost for operational movement).

All of those -- or others that might be imagined would cost MPPs, and you may or may not get any favorable results. It would be random, thereby providing a wild-card element.

The problem would likely be -- how complicated would it be to include, as far as programming?

This might provide further depth, and those that don't care for that could just ignore it.

[Mr. Clark]

I love the intel and espionage aspects of warfare, and if that could somehow be modeled in a future patch it would be pretty damn sweet!

[pzgndr]

Some comments about intel and FOW in general, which include signals, air recon, espionage, underground, partisans, etc. At simplest, you would only see adjacent enemy units and nothing else. At the next level, you may see units within air/naval recon range and maybe limited information about other units on the board. Here we haggle about what those limits are. The first piece would be unit type - ground, air or naval. The next piece would be specific type - armor, bomber, carrier. The last piece may include unit ID and strength. There could be some base probabilities that information is revealed, which could be improved with intel R&D. Cities and ports, with more potential observers and means to communicate information, might have increased chances of providing intel. And of course intel could be wrong, like an infantry corps reported as an armor corps or full strength reported as low strength.

Simple probabilities per hex (not adjacent to enemy) could be introduced to make this happen. For example, a base chance of 30% for unit type, then 40% for specific type, then 30% for unit ID. Base chances could be increased 10% in cities and ports, decreased 10% in rough terrain - mountains, forests, swamps. And base chances don't have to start the same for each country, there could be differences, like -10% for Russia and -5% for Germany. Intel R&D could increase these chances 5-10% for each level, and/or reduce your opponent's. And previously identified units may have increased chances on subsequent turns. These are just some very rough ideas for consideration.

The end result could be a system showing a fluid picture of the enemy over time, mostly incomplete and sometimes wrong, improving over the course of the war as intel gets better. And you would never really know what your enemy knew about your units, unless some kind of unit indicator shows possible intel compromise. The power of the computer presents a lot of possibilites here which might not be too hard to implement as future enhancements to the game. However, stuff like this would also contribute to hair loss and nail-biting during a game, so beware.