Tweak to spying needed?

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided

Message

GKar -> Tweak to spying needed? (9/10/2007 8:47:39 AM)
WH seems to be pretty busy with ironing out a few shortcomings of the engine - thanks once again! [:)] I started thinking about one thing though: Do we need a tweak to spying? I might be mistaken, but it's my impression that spying tends to be overdone at the moment, and it seems to be too hard to defend against it. The intelligence battle is lost for Japan from the very beginning, and even Germany's inventions seem to be spread to the Allies faster than Adolf could say "Wunderwaffe". Of course this is somewhat historical - although most tech stealing was done thanks to captured equipment IIRC - but still, it might be too much overall. What do you think?

MrQuiet -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/10/2007 11:19:26 PM)
I think Japan should start with higher security. 15 or maybe even more since they tend to dissapear.

christian brown -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/10/2007 11:20:16 PM)
I think that it is OK the way it is, intel is a really expensive buy for Russia and the WA in the beginning of the game while Germany usually has free supply coming out it's ears until Barb begins. If the German player really cares they CAN afford to increase their security substantially and even spy a bit on their own to boot. Japan and China are of course at a disadvantage from the beginning, which is OK by me. I love the fact that to steal tech upgrades you need at least one point in each attribute (if you are more than a full level behind) so again, there IS a cost.

Lebatron -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/11/2007 2:42:17 AM)
I was also thinking along the same lines as MrQuiet. In Uncommon Valor 2.0 I already increased Japans security. I might even add another point or two for the next update.

Marshall Art -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/14/2007 10:36:58 PM)
I support increasing Japan's Anti-spying capability - or security as the game calls it. Japan should have a reasonable chance to protect its research secrets and cover its production at least in the first years of the game. As far as I remember no other naval power knew exactly that the Yamato/Musashi BB's were being built, and the true capabilities of the Zero fighters and Naval Long Lance torpedoes, to name a few examples. This would go along with historical problems that the Allies had, before superior code breaking and recon made the Japanese plans clear, like during the battle of Midway. Since Japan has very few resources to spare for security from the very beginning, it should start with significant higher ratings. This also would prevent the rather non-historic German tech-stealing from its so-called Ally. During the war, almost no co-operation occured on a tech level, besides German "wonderweapons" plans being given to Japan during the last months of the war as a payback for shipments of scarce raw materials from Japan to Germany.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/15/2007 7:59:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Art I support increasing Japan's Anti-spying capability It seems like there is a very good consensus for this. I also think it good that it hinders the Germans spying on Japan. Japanese security currently starts at 8. How about 15?

GKar -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/15/2007 9:47:49 PM)
I definitely agree with increasing Japanese starting security. Additionally I thought that maybe the security rolls should be adjusted to favour the defending side a little more. It's my impression that things get a little too easy for the attacker once the number of spies reaches high levels - even when the defender invests as well.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/16/2007 7:50:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GKar Additionally I thought that maybe the security rolls should be adjusted to favour the defending side a little more. I'd need more general support for that. I haven't really thought about it in detail myself.

Petiloup -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/24/2007 5:01:40 PM)
Everyone will look at me like an heretic but I think the whole spying stuff should be dumped and have a complete overhaul. Why? Let's take Japan and it's weapons secrets in 1941... -0-, none, nothing, zip ,nada. They had a great fighter the Zero but totaly unarmored which did give him incredible range and amazing maneuverability to a price... blowing out of the sky faster than a fireworks. What gave Japan it's success? Amazing training, great experience over China and lack of defense from the Allied. Give it Midway or against Port Moresby with a real American presence and they didn't do so well. They had a great torpedo the "Long Lance" and the US a very bad one. They had great training for night fighting but no radar. They had no tanks of any value, no great infantry rifle like the US Garant or machine gun like the German MG42, no landing craft but unarmored barge, the carriers fuel lines were flawed and tended to blow when hit and fire was on board, no flexible chain of command but rigid battle plans which doomed them more than once,... What they had is Yamamoto, some great infantry Generals like against Singapore/Malaya and a total contempt from the Great Western Nations. Then the surprise of the first shot. By 1942 they did lost the Coral Sea battle, Midway and Guadalcanal. Were contained in Burma. This is a few months after the initial onslaught and from there it did go down all the way till the end. They could still produce great planes and other weapons but not mass produce them at all. Let's speak of Germany and it's wonderweapon. What are those in 1939? The Me-109? well not the plane as the Spitfire and the French Dewottine 520 were equals but again the pilots training in real combat situation over Spain and Poland. The Stuka? he was brought down in flames over England as being damn slow. The Heinkel 111? not as good as the British Wellington bomber. What about tanks? they had Panzer 1 armed with 2 machines guns, Panzer 2 armed with a 20mm gun, some Panzer 3 armed with a 37mm gun, a very few Panzer IV armed with a 75mm short barelled infantry gun and some T37 Tcheques tanks. Nothing great compared to the British Matilda that only an AA 88mm could knocked out or a Stuka, or the French Somua or B1-Bis heavily armored. What they had is the Blitzkried and high intensive training. Also some experience with Poland against a French army ready to fight in the WW1 spirit. Germany could combine Artillery, planes, and ground troops as they needed while the Allies were far from any combined arms doctrine. Even during the Desert War in North Africa the British were very slow to adapt. No mentionning that again Russia they had a huge problem when facing Russian tanks like the T34-75 and the Klementi Vorochilov KV1. Again there the first successes come from Blitzkrieg doctrine and combat experience with of course great leaders like Guderian, Von Manstein, Runstedt, etc... All the great German wonderweapons including Jet Planes, rockets, missiles, supertanks, etc were developped in 1943 till the end the war when it was obvious for Hitler a quick victory was impossible and even so it didn't matter anymore compared to the huge industrial might of Russia and the US together. Germany did produce about 10,000 Panzer IV, 1,500 Tigers and 6,000 Panthers while in the meantime Russia produced by 1945 57,000 T34, 10,000 KV and the US about 50,000 Shermans. We could review planes build, artilleries and so on with similar huge production differences. Not talking that having good tanks and total air supremacy against them doomed Germany against the US while against Russia they had inferiority in numbers and at the end Russia did breached the gap in tactics mostly but not at a low unit level were German troops still excelled. I really believe you should just give the same value to everyone in the game but with a bonus. A strong bonus to Germany in 1939 till 1941, then a weaker one in 1942, a minimum one in 1943 then nothing afterwards. Same for Japan till mid 1942 then a weakness as US planes and other weapons were technically far superior to anything Japan could come by. Just look at the number of carriers the US did produced by end of 1945. It's amazing with something like 20 big carriers and 100 escort carriers. What can you do against that? Make it a different bonus for airwarfare against ground battle or ships and even a variable one based on success if London falls or Moscow, etc... but by the end of the war Germany could come with anything besides the ABomb maybe and they would have still loose the war. Once they couldn't win it against Russia it was over for Hitler. Germany simply didn't have the industrial might to fight the world. Agreed they could have still put nasty surprises like the new line of XXI type submarines but it would just be a small setback before the Allies could devise a countermeasure. When I see Russia investing in Spying in 1940 this is a joke as they had better tanks already and not bad planes but no training and no combined arms capabilities almost. Also no defensive strategy against such an attack. In AWD Russia can declare war in 1942/1943 but they would have suffered a lot against a well trained German fighting machine just because of the lack of experience while in this game it's a walk in the park mostly. Instead of Research you should emphatize on Combined Arm strategy and training/fighting experience with more levels I think. Newly produced units: -2 for Raw recruits. After a period of time: 0 with training or instead surviving 1 fight Then like in AWD: Trained units if X% chances roll done, then Seasoned, then Veteran then Elite. So between an Elite and a Raw recruit you could go till +/- 8 on a roll. With heavy losses on the East Front Russia would slowly build it's trained units and demolish German ones and after a while get even and push deeper. That's what happened in North Africa against Rommel with the newly formed US units. Kasserine was a disaster and after that it went better but Sicily was not a piece of cake or Italy. Even D-Day was just an extended beachhead for months before Operation Cobra. Of course this is only my point of view.

GKar -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/24/2007 7:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Polonthi Newly produced units: -2 for Raw recruits. After a period of time: 0 with training or instead surviving 1 fight Then like in AWD: Trained units if X% chances roll done, then Seasoned, then Veteran then Elite. So between an Elite and a Raw recruit you could go till +/- 8 on a roll. With heavy losses on the East Front Russia would slowly build it's trained units and demolish German ones and after a while get even and push deeper. That's what happened in North Africa against Rommel with the newly formed US units. Kasserine was a disaster and after that it went better but Sicily was not a piece of cake or Italy. Even D-Day was just an extended beachhead for months before Operation Cobra. Actually I think this is a good idea. More "ranks" for the units would be realistic and give more flavour to the whole thing as well.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/25/2007 6:03:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GKar quote: ORIGINAL: Polonthi Newly produced units: -2 for Raw recruits. After a period of time: 0 with training or instead surviving 1 fight Then like in AWD: Trained units if X% chances roll done, then Seasoned, then Veteran then Elite. So between an Elite and a Raw recruit you could go till +/- 8 on a roll. With heavy losses on the East Front Russia would slowly build it's trained units and demolish German ones and after a while get even and push deeper. That's what happened in North Africa against Rommel with the newly formed US units. Kasserine was a disaster and after that it went better but Sicily was not a piece of cake or Italy. Even D-Day was just an extended beachhead for months before Operation Cobra. Actually I think this is a good idea. More "ranks" for the units would be realistic and give more flavour to the whole thing as well. Way back when, I was initially very unexcited about this whole veteran/elite thing. But I've come over, it is cool and adding this greenhorn level would be neat. The "after a period of time" thing is essentially impossible (too difficult to code and have appropriate UI, etc). I can see making it so that a green unit would become experienced (i.e. lose the penalty) simply by ending the player's turn supplied, whether that supply was used in an actual action or is simply supply expended to represent training. The most difficult thing to change in this whole beast is graphics. Anything requiring UI, like a new icon to represent fresh recruits, is difficult.

ArticFire -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/25/2007 9:00:11 PM)
All your points are valid but I think where your problem comes when relating to the game is abstract and time. For instance making the experience of troops is all well and good except for the fact that the games time line passes to quickly for anything in depth. Most of your points seem to say that the game doesn't mirror history enough. Well frankly I'm glad it doesn't otherwise who in their right mind would play Axis that has 0 nada shot at pulling off a victory ever because as soon as 1943 rolls around they get walked over effortlessly. One of my larger complaints about the sequel back in the beta days was that it forced the Axis player to do things a very specific way to have any hope of a victory. Things are a bit better now in the final version I see but to me it still stands that Axis are to bound to follow history as is. I don't think an extra layer of making sure the Axis life is total misery late game is really needed. In short I think altering the spying system to much , especially for instance doubling japan's starting defense to it neuters options for Germany that is not needed. A much better solution in my mind would simply be able to modify the cost of adjusting spying for each country to better reflect things. For instance making it more expensive for Russia to make spys , but cheaper for them to build anti-spying. Etc. You could even setup a system where the costs altered as time passed or if certain events took place to try and better mirror histroy without outright cutting off even more options for the given sides except to regurgitate a history book over and over every game.

GKar -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/25/2007 9:36:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticFire In short I think altering the spying system to much , especially for instance doubling japan's starting defense to it neuters options for Germany that is not needed. A much better solution in my mind would simply be able to modify the cost of adjusting spying for each country to better reflect things. For instance making it more expensive for Russia to make spys , but cheaper for them to build anti-spying. Etc. You could even setup a system where the costs altered as time passed or if certain events took place to try and better mirror histroy without outright cutting off even more options for the given sides except to regurgitate a history book over and over every game. Germany stealing (or getting) techs from Japan in 1939 is grossly ahistorical though, personally I don't like it at all when that happens. I agree to the other suggestion though, tweaking the spy costs depending on the different nations could be a good thing.

ArticFire -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/25/2007 10:54:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GKar quote: ORIGINAL: ArticFire In short I think altering the spying system to much , especially for instance doubling japan's starting defense to it neuters options for Germany that is not needed. A much better solution in my mind would simply be able to modify the cost of adjusting spying for each country to better reflect things. For instance making it more expensive for Russia to make spys , but cheaper for them to build anti-spying. Etc. You could even setup a system where the costs altered as time passed or if certain events took place to try and better mirror histroy without outright cutting off even more options for the given sides except to regurgitate a history book over and over every game. Germany stealing (or getting) techs from Japan in 1939 is grossly ahistorical though, personally I don't like it at all when that happens. I agree to the other suggestion though, tweaking the spy costs depending on the different nations could be a good thing. I don't think it's anymore ahistorical then Russia ripping off everyone around them in 1939. Since the adjustable costs per country is likely too big a change code wise I would that spying should be far less effective. I think stealing tech in general should be far less effective. The real benefit of investing in 'intelligence' should be to get the production/research data etc in my opinion. In my view that would better reflect the roll of military intelligence. I expect that overall the whole spying system could simply be revamped into 2 values , intelligence and counter intelligence. Then the results of the 'spy battles' could be weighted taking into account the time frame for more easily. So for instance in the beginning it might be more likely winning a spy battle clues you into Germany's production , or reviels to Germany some of SU's back FOG areas for a season etc. Then as the timeline progresses it would become more likely that you may snag a little tech help to reflect battle experince with the enemy , and less likely to see their production etc. Still all that is something requiring I suspect to much change for a simple patch. If you don't like Germ stealing from Japan , I don't see how you can justify SU stealing from US. I don't know why allied countries can steal from each other period and never did understand what that was supposed to abstract as it just seems gamey. I'd definitly support simply leaving everything as is and making it so getting tech is far less likely then it is now , but doing so makes the purpose of buying spys non cost effective and so you basicly eliminate that. Ideally we could just make it impossible to steal tech from an ally.

christian brown -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/26/2007 6:56:00 AM)
All right, how about this, it ought to be easier to code than some of the other options: Make it impossible to "keep up" with tech unless at a full level down, so my inf at 7 ev and your inf at 7 ev can gain no tech steal until one of us is at 8. Make the "investment" price go up to 3 points to be eligible to "learn" from others instead of the 1 it is at now. This is a much more subtle change for now, why not see how that works to start? Perhaps raising Japan's starting security a few points would not be the end of the world either......

Petiloup -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/26/2007 1:55:38 PM)
A simple solution would be to limit spying if the tech difference in every area of one unit type is 1 level or more lower not in a specific area. For example Japan Fighter Speed is 2 because they did conceive their planes as light and unarmored to make them long range so they could have less evasion because being unarmored. Call it the price of a choice. Germany therefore could not spy against Japan Fighter speed level to reach a level 2 themselves as their Air Attack value is the same than the one of the Japanese Fighters for example. They make a choice because Europe theater doesn't seem to need long range fighters. Chinese could spy for planes technology against anyone but they can't afford it. Allied submarines could be improved with spying as learning from fighting german ones but their planes would mostly be at least equal in one area so they will need to develop the rest themselves without spying unless falling behind everywhere.

Forwarn45 -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/30/2007 8:59:56 AM)
I would have to consider it more, but my short response is that I think security/spying/sigint works quite well as is - although I agree initial Japanese security should be somewhat higher. As has been pointed out, this helps and hurts the Axis as it (very reasonably, I think) makes it less possible for the Germans to steal Japanese secrets in the early game. Other than that, the way things work I really think it is both balanced and adds some depth to gameplay (while also abstractly modeling the ability of one side that is behind in tech to catch up by seeing what the other side has done).

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/30/2007 9:19:02 PM)
Just to let everyone know where this stands now. I've changed Japanese starting security to 15. I could be convinced it should be smaller, but this seems like a number most people were happy to see. I don't expect to make any other changes.

Marshall Art -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/30/2007 9:23:32 PM)
Polonthi made some valid points but I think you could argue that a weapon system that is superior in one decisive feature over its counterparts still can be called technologically advanced even it it has significant weaknesses that later opposing models expose. From that I still would call the Zero superior over the early war USN carrier fighters. Only after the Allied fighters were improved they actually could CATCH and hit the Zero. Only after the T-34 was introduced in massed formations it could provide significant success for the Red Army. Only after Heavy Russian tanks were used with the "right" tactical doctrine they could overwhelm the few Heavy German tanks standing in their way later in the war. Since there is no tech category called "tactics" in this game you could make the point that advanced tech includes the "how to use your big gun" knowledge. The game pretty nicely shows that as the Japanese fall behind in tech they cannot overcome increasing Allied numbers AND tech combined. Even in 1943/44 they could hurt the US forces pretty badly. While the Panther (Pz V) was not built in high numbers compared to the T-34 I read somewhere that it had a kill ratio of nine T-34 to one PzV (9:1), which puts the 6000 Panthers in a different light vs. 57000 T-34's. I would imagine the ratio is quite similar when looking at the Sherman vs. Panthers or even Tigers. There are stories of one single Tiger crew mopping up about 2 dozens of US tanks in an ambush during the 1944 France campaign, or other cases where one single Jagdtiger held a whole Allied division at bay for a day until it got killed by Fighter-bomber rockets. The whole point I want to make is that without some significant advantages in both tactics and tech the Axis would have lost the war much earlier, and this I find portrayed in the game. If the Axis powers, Germany in particular, fall behind in any weapons tech too early, they will have a hard time. Also after great dislike in the beginning I kind of found that the spying system works quite well, although it may not be entirely realistic. Considering play balance I think too drastic changes are hard to sell, since the benefit would be small. After all spying is just one little sub-game within the big picture. I doubt anyone can say it has game-deciding influence, although the decisions players make of course can impact particularly the battles. I would prefer tweaking the existing system over a completely new one. The idea to increase the minimum amount of RP that allow spying from 1 to 3 sounds interesting to me, also how about forbidding the spying nation to "steal" the final point that would be necessary to finish a research project? At least one would have to buy one RP at the end. It sounds strange that a nation can buy just one RP and than over the course of the game get the whole tech package for free. Also I find that the amount of tech points spent on a given turn could be changed a llittle. To develop super weapons it takes up to 7-8 turns in the end, with 3 RPs max. at the higher levels and assuming about 10-15 units on the map. If nations were allowed to spend 3,4,5,6,7 etc. at the end, there would be more incentives to still continue investing in tech even in 1945 because a tech still would be within reasonable reach. Otherwise, if it is 1944, and I have Fighter Evasion of 9, I would never invest into it further since it would only become available in about 1946. By that time the opposing side has surely caught up already and my chances to stay ahead are zero. This would prevent the situation that the WA and sometimes also Germany stop researching in around 1944-45 for most of the unit types since the pay back would be small or zero. The most tech advances were made in the late war BECAUSE that was the only chance for German victory, and BECAUSE the Allies had to keep up with Germany to achieve final victory at reasonable casualty ratios. I would not mind introducing even more elite unit levels: like brown/bronze for experienced (+-2), silver/blue for elite (+-4), gold for legendary (+-6 modifiers), to go with the olympic colors. That would allow gold units that are hit to still remain far superior over not experienced units. As it is now, I use elite units almost like all others since when they get hit they loose the significant part of their bonus, as silver units have only a very little advantage over not experienced units. The random auto hit assures that even a super unit can still be hit, so no unit will be invulnerable.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (9/30/2007 9:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Art Also I find that the amount of tech points spent on a given turn could be changed a llittle. To develop super weapons it takes up to 7-8 turns in the end, with 3 RPs max. at the higher levels and assuming about 10-15 units on the map. If nations were allowed to spend 3,4,5,6,7 etc. at the end, there would be more incentives to still continue investing in tech even in 1945 because a tech still would be within reasonable reach. I've never liked the limit to 3 RPs spent once your well beyond world standard. You should be allowed to spend exhorbitantly and make progress in a reasonable time. A better way would be to increase the cost. At WS+3, instead of making the cost 3x and limiting spending to 3RPs, why not make the cost 4x and limit spending to 9RPs? Even just increasing the limit to 6RPs with no other change would be an improvement, IMO. Those final increments would take longer than prior increments, but not so long that they are useless. If you did this, then at WS+3 it would take 3/2x as long as normal (at max expenditure) to make progress, instead of 3x (which is essentially a full stop). And at WS+4 it would take 4/2x as long, instead of 4x.

ArticFire -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/1/2007 8:16:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WanderingHead Just to let everyone know where this stands now. I've changed Japanese starting security to 15. I could be convinced it should be smaller, but this seems like a number most people were happy to see. I don't expect to make any other changes. I still don't like this as the only side it hurts is Axis. If the Axis player wanted to increase Japans counter intel they could. Allies will still have the ability to overcome and rip off Japan left and right just like now the only difference is you hurt an option for Germany. I don't see why a change is needed that only hurts one side. If you don't like Germany stealing from japan cut off the ability for any ally to steal from one another. imo this does nothing to help the intel gameyness only makes life easier on the Allied side.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/2/2007 5:34:18 AM)
I'm perfectly happy to do whatever most people want. Honestly, I must admit that I don't have a strong opinion on the subject myself. I'm happy with 8 or 15. Personally, when I play I load up the Japanese security and I don't bother trying to have my Germans steal Japanese tech. So 15 would greatly assist me when I play Axis.

GKar -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/2/2007 10:17:52 AM)
I wouldn't mind if it were impossible to steal techs from an ally. One other thing: How about limiting the number of spies you can buy each turn? As of now you can hire and install two dozen spies in a glimpse, given enough supplies. If it was harder to accumulate them, the whole tech stealing business (which is often abused in my opinion) would be slowed down a bit.

Marshall Art -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/2/2007 2:11:20 PM)
I'd challenge the point that only the Allies profit. Yes, Germany would be kept from spying on Japan. But that only directs Germany's spies towards their true enemies: WA and/or Russia. This is both more historical and makes more sense since you rather spy on your opponents and not your "friends". Russia is a special case since until 1941 it could not be exactly called an Ally to Britain. In fact it was closer to Germany than to any Allied power until June 22, 1941. Not to mention the cold war after 1945. As Japan and Germany (with more SIGINT and/or more spies) can challenge Allied spies in the early years the Allies really need to invest into SIGINT and/or spies. As it is now they get Japanese production, research data almost for free. That is a great advantage since they know what Japan most likely plans to do. In the early years the WA and Russia have little production compared to later and thus would be at an disadvantage rather than profit from the change. One should keep in mind that these changes are of minute impact since at best you get a couple of tech points worth from a spying action over the course of the game. You still need to put in your own resources if you need the tech level FAST (which is always the case[:D]). I agree that "creating" 100s of spies in a single turn is not realistic, the number of spies could be reduced to a level that would force the players to continuosly invest in spies much like they continuosly invest into production, supply etc. How about allowing only one spy per turn and per target nation in 1939, 2 in 1940, 3 in 1941 etc? That would disallow moves like "let's purchase 20 spies against Russia now" but still would give the WA plenty of new spies after 1941-42, close to when they finally geared up their intel services? Security and SIGINT could also be levelled the same way. If the spying from Allied powers were to be reduced, I'd suggest to change the spies to the following: GERMANY Security - 10; SIGINT - 6; vs Japan - 0; vs Russia - 4; vs China - 0; vs W. Allies - 6; JAPAN Security - 15 (increased from 8); SIGINT - 4; vs Germany - 0; vs Russia - 3; vs China - 6; vs W. Allies - 6; RUSSIA Security - 15; SIGINT - 5; vs Germany - 9; vs Japan - 9; vs China - 9 (useless anyway); vs W. Allies - 3 (changed from 9); W. Allies Security - 8; SIGINT - 10; vs Germany - 3; vs Japan - 2; vs Russia - 0 (changed from 3); vs China - 2 (useless anyway);

ArticFire -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/3/2007 9:17:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Art I'd challenge the point that only the Allies profit. Yes, Germany would be kept from spying on Japan. But that only directs Germany's spies towards their true enemies: WA and/or Russia. This is both more historical and makes more sense since you rather spy on your opponents and not your "friends". Russia is a special case since until 1941 it could not be exactly called an Ally to Britain. In fact it was closer to Germany than to any Allied power until June 22, 1941. Not to mention the cold war after 1945. I don't see how you see forcing Germany to do things a certain way a benefit. It may scratch some 'realism' itch but it has 0 bearing on the practical effects of such a change. The whole spying system has 0 realism as is so you cannot apply realism arguments to a system fundamentally in opposite to it. As I have mentioned one of the primary problems with this sequel is how it flat forces the Axis to do things in a certain way even moreso then the first incarnation of the game. This change just yet again ties the Axis players hands , meanwhile of course SU and WA continue to steal from each other with impunity. I still say no stealing from an ally at all if your going to make a change. But if you insist on jacking up Japans counter intel , I believe that none of the allied countries should get to start with spy's already on their ally's just like the axis side. I also believe that Russia's starting spy counts against Germ/Jap should be drasticly lowered. SU in WW2 was NOT the secret police , cold war Russia of the 1980's. If the Allied player chooses to play SU in that way they should have to pay for the privlige just like everyone else.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/4/2007 9:29:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticFire SU in WW2 was NOT the secret police , cold war Russia of the 1980's. Currently reading the Gulag Archipelago ... hard to argue there weren't secret police! True, they were mostly pretty inward focused. However, the existence of active Communist cells around the world does seem to make some Russian leg-up reasonable. The only place that I intentionally steal from Allies is actually China stealing from WA, and it seems perfectly reasonable there. Really, the idea came from the question "What the hell can China do with all these supplies?" when the WA are able to consistently deliver them and China doesn't need them for factory repairs or maneuvering. But back to the issue at hand ... you have an excellent point. If Japan needs an extra 7 points in security, why not just give them 35 extra supply and let the Japanese player decide what to do with it? In general, more choices make the game better. The only reasons to give the Japanese more security instead of supplies are if the issue is the mechanic and not game balance, i.e. in this case, if we are more worried about Germany stealing from Japan than the Allies stealing from Japan. At this point, I believe that the best thing would be an adjustment of the mechanic, although this is unlikely to occur. As it is, the only reason I ever bother to spy is to steal technology. It would be nice if actual useful INTELLIGENCE could have equal roughly weight as a benefit of spying. Somehow. All that is well and good, but now I am even less sure what to actually do. I was happy to make the Japanese security change when it was unanimous. Now I'm inclined to leave security at 8 or increase it only to 12 or so.

ArticFire -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/4/2007 5:56:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WanderingHead quote: ORIGINAL: ArticFire SU in WW2 was NOT the secret police , cold war Russia of the 1980's. Currently reading the Gulag Archipelago ... hard to argue there weren't secret police! True, they were mostly pretty inward focused. However, the existence of active Communist cells around the world does seem to make some Russian leg-up reasonable. The only place that I intentionally steal from Allies is actually China stealing from WA, and it seems perfectly reasonable there. Really, the idea came from the question "What the hell can China do with all these supplies?" when the WA are able to consistently deliver them and China doesn't need them for factory repairs or maneuvering. But back to the issue at hand ... you have an excellent point. If Japan needs an extra 7 points in security, why not just give them 35 extra supply and let the Japanese player decide what to do with it? In general, more choices make the game better. The only reasons to give the Japanese more security instead of supplies are if the issue is the mechanic and not game balance, i.e. in this case, if we are more worried about Germany stealing from Japan than the Allies stealing from Japan. At this point, I believe that the best thing would be an adjustment of the mechanic, although this is unlikely to occur. As it is, the only reason I ever bother to spy is to steal technology. It would be nice if actual useful INTELLIGENCE could have equal roughly weight as a benefit of spying. Somehow. All that is well and good, but now I am even less sure what to actually do. I was happy to make the Japanese security change when it was unanimous. Now I'm inclined to leave security at 8 or increase it only to 12 or so. I still don't see why everyone is so worried about Germany stealing from Japan , there are some pretty good examples of Germany / Japan attempting to share technology historically. It would be nice if you could tie the spy system into the tactical side of the game. For instance force a country to have a supply link to a territory of the country you wish to steal from that is in turn linked to that countries capital. In this way for instance if Germany / Japan want to share tech Germany has to make a concerted effort to open up the middle east. Same for SU/WA , they would need to maintain the India or northern ocean connections to be able to share tech. In that way you could also up the effectivness of stealing tech since there would be a tactical component and it would not always be available. SU/GE would always be able to steal from each other. WA from GE as long as WA maintains a transport connection to mainland Europe. GE from WA as long as they gain control of the med and can link to WA territories in India or Africa. That would also have the effect of making the Sub vs WA Transport far more interesting. It would actually be worth it for GE to risk the WR increase to drop WA transports in hopes of breaking the connection and force WA to interact with GE more directly to maintain the direct link threw the Med or coast of Europe. Such a connection should make spying / intel much more effective then it is right now so that cutting it a worthwhile tactical goal. I expect that this would take large code changes though which are just not possible. But I think it's something worthwhile to think about for the next incarnation of the game.

GKar -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/4/2007 9:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArticFire For instance force a country to have a supply link to a territory of the country you wish to steal from that is in turn linked to that countries capital. Not a bad idea. I guess it'd benefit the Allies again though, as there's probably little point in still sharing/stealing techs for Germany and Japan when they have a land or transport connection. I still think that Japanese security should be increased, as this will make the occasional theft by the WAllies or Russia harder. And I'd really like to see a limit of investment in espionage per turn like the one Marshall Art proposed - if it is feasible at all. Being able to buy 20 spies at once if you have the supplies takes away some of the strategic thinking.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/4/2007 11:52:14 PM)

One idea is to make it it easier to catch spies when there are more of them.

From: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1302037

1. If Random (Security) > Random (50) then opposing player loses a spy. 
2. If Random (Security) > Random (Defending SIGINT *8) then opposing player loses 1 SIGINT. 
3. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random (Defending Security *3) then research progress is exposed. 
4. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random (Defending Security *3) then production units are exposed. 
5. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random (Defending Security *3) then SIGINT screen is exposed. 
6. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random (Defending Security *4) then that region is exposed (check for all regions). 
7. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random (Defending Security *3) then lower WR range bracket increased by 1 (unless minimum of range already at real value). 
8. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random (Defending Security *3) then higher WR range bracket decreased by 1 (unless maximum of range already at real value). 
9. If Random (Attacking Spies *2) > Random (Defending Security) then technology can be pillaged. 
10. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random (Defending Security + 5) then gain 1 research point in technology you are behind in. 
11. If Random (SIGINT) > Random (Defending Security) then gain +1 to attack for that unit (repeated for all units in battle.

One thing I notice here is that there is no attrition of security. They never disappear. There should be a running cost to this.

Also, I believe that tech can be stolen even if the tech levels are the same but the target player has just RESEARCH which is ahead. Perhaps a full level difference should be a requirement, or the probability should reduce for having nearly the same level (the enhancements to a weapon are more obvious when there is a big difference observed).

But anyway, I was thinking of something like this, say

1. If Random (Security)+ Random(Attacking Spies) > Random (50) then opposing player loses a spy. 
12. If Random(Security) > Random(50) then lose one security.

I'm reluctant to limit spy builds because of UI changes (how to indicate, etc).

Also, I don't know that I even want to make the above changes. I should be conservative on changing anything, and while something like the above seems preferable, it doesn't seem like a no brainer to me.

MrQuiet -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/5/2007 4:22:00 AM)
To me the issue is that the WA can easily afford to spend the supplies to steal a lot of Japans teck and keep easy tabs on there production and research. When I say a lot I mean one point of reasearch in at least 3-5 fields every single turn. Thats about 80-100 points over the course of the game. I do this every game. Forwarn45 is currently doing this to me in a tourney game. It just doesnt feel right to me that the WA can steal so efficiently against Japan. Japan can not afford to stop this if they want to build a effective fighting force. I think starting Japan at 15 security is the right move. Wether or not allied nations get some teck research from each other really does not bother me either way. -MrQ

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

4.765625