RE: Tweak to spying needed?

RE: Tweak to spying needed? (Full Version)

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

Message

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/5/2007 7:48:20 AM)
another possible tweak is to change the criteria for which tech fields can be stolen. Right now, you have to have at least one point invested towards that field for it to be eligible. This is fairly meaningless, I routinely invest exactly one point just to enable theft. Instead, the requirement could be that you have invested in that tech THIS TURN, i.e. you are actively researching it.

Forwarn45 -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/5/2007 7:51:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WanderingHead another possible tweak is to change the criteria for which tech fields can be stolen. Right now, you have to have at least one point invested towards that field for it to be eligible. This is fairly meaningless, I routinely invest exactly one point just to enable theft. Instead, the requirement could be that you have invested in that tech THIS TURN, i.e. you are actively researching it. I don't favor this change. Increasing Japanese security to about 15 is a sufficient adjustment. I think the spy system otherwise works pretty well as is.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/5/2007 8:54:30 AM)
OK, bearing in mind that I am in a kind of brainstorming mode, just throwing out ideas. One issue I see is that if you are behind in one tech, you have some probability of stealing it. If you are behind in N techs, you have the same probability for EACH tech, so now you will actually steal N times as many tech points (on average) just because you are further behind in so many. For the same investment. Perhaps the incremental probability of stealing techs should be reduced the more techs you are actually behind in. For example, change item #10 (#9 shown just for reference) 9. If Random (Attacking Spies 2) > Random (Defending Security) then technology can be pillaged. 10. If Random (Attacking Spies) > Random ((Defending Security) (1 + (number of eligible techs behind)/2)) then gain 1 research point in technology you are behind in. If we set N=(number of eligible techs behind) and look at the probability of stealing a tech, for attack<defend (this restraint just for simplicity of analysis, and with this formula it is valid for large N anyway) we have probability(#10 satisfied) = att/def/(2+N) = att/def/3 (N=1) = att/def/4 (N=2) = att/def/5 (N=3) = att/def/6 (N=4) ~= att/def/N (N large) Which means that the average number of stolen techs passing #10 (assuming #9 already passed for the time being), given that the above is applied to all N techs, is ave #techs passing #10 = N * probability(#10 satisfied) = 1/3 * att/def (N=1) = 2/4 * att/def (N=2) = 3/5 * att/def (N=3) = 4/6 * att/def (N=4) = 5/7 * att/def (N=5) ~= att/def (N large) So you always get a little more when you are behind in more techs, but not linearly. In other words, if you are behind in 1 tech you can have a reasonable chance to steal it, but if you were behind in 10 techs you'd only have a reasonable chance of stealing about 3 or 4 instead of stealing all 10. I know the math may look too much for the non-mathematically inclined, but I think it just plain makes sense, frankly. You shouldn't be able to steal so much more for the same cost just because you are behind by more. This would also discourage throwing a point of research here and there just to be able to steal the techs, because you'd now rather focus on the techs you care more about. So you'd only throw a point into something that you were really prioritizing.

ArticFire -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/6/2007 6:57:23 AM)
What about the idea of making it so you can only steal 1 tech per turn per country yous teal from. That way instead of someone ripping off every single field you are ahead of them at all in almost every turn they get randomly just 1 notch in one field. In this way spying may boost something your working on but you cannot rely on it to do half your reasearch for you while you happily research other things. This would also encourage people to spread their spying around so that they can benifit from a few advances per turn rather then just 1 or 2 from the main antagonists. This would also provide a law of diminishing returns. Rather then "buy 30 spys and steal everything they are doing" it would make it so going way past what your opponent is prepared to defend against is largely a waste. Thin turn would give more focus to security / signit as spys would be less bought by bakers dozens. This would also have the added benefit of needing no other modifications to the system. Granted I'm biased to my own ideas but I think it provides a good solution to the abuse of spying without needing much in the way of code change and no need for any UI modifications.

Marshall Art -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/6/2007 11:48:43 AM)
Not sure about limiting just 1 steal per turn, seems to go to the other extreme to me (too little bang for the buck). The formulae above which limit the actual steals to 3-4 out of 10 - do they treat each tech identically (i.e. same probability) or are the first that are calculated by the game engine preffered? There should be an equal chance of each tech being stolen, I am not sure just from looking at the formulae.

Marshall Art -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/6/2007 12:05:10 PM)
If you cannot (or are unwilling) to limit expenditures per turn for spies, maybe "rolling formulae" that reduce spying efficiency each turn would be an easier solution which would force players to keep investing into spies? E.g. what 10 spies can achieve against 10 security in 1940, it would take 15 in 1941, 20 in 1942, just as an idea? This would go along the lines that the spying business became more and more complex and the obvious and easy steals became more difficult over time as the counter-intel got more sophisticated as well? Just to give you some ideas that spying and secret police were a part of the Soviet system from very early on. Lately I watched a program about Soviet spies on TV (German TV that is). The Soviets "hired" their spies starting in the 1930s all over the western world. Most of them were sympathetic to the communist ideas and young poeple like students. Over the decades many of them rose to positions in various fields of professions, just a few examples I can still remember: One, being a physics scientist, became the spy who stole the plans of the atomic bomb from the US around 1945, which game the bomb to the Soviets many years earlier (in 1949) than if they had not received this information. Another made his carreer in the British counter-intelligence and became their chief of counter-intel during the 1950's. You can imagine what damage that brought to Britain's secret services. A third was sent as a reporter all over the world to "report" from the countires that were believed to be potential enemies of the Soviet Union, among them was Japan in the late 1930's. He reported lots of the Japanese intentions to Moscow but Stalin (as he mostly did) did not believe him! Of course as he was caught in Japan the Soviets denied everthing so he got hanged in 1944(?). The first two I mentioned spent their elder years as heroes in the Soviet Union.

Marshall Art -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/6/2007 12:16:48 PM)
If it is more of an agreeable solution, how about increasing Japan's Sec. to 12 + give them 15 supplies more. That way the stealing business in Tokio is somewhat limited and Japan's player can decide if he wants to further increase sec. or buy some RPs or units from the 3 points worth of supplies he does not have to produce actively.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/6/2007 7:33:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Art The formulae above which limit the actual steals to 3-4 out of 10 - do they treat each tech identically (i.e. same probability) or are the first that are calculated by the game engine preffered? There should be an equal chance of each tech being stolen, I am not sure just from looking at the formulae. The forumula I proposed would be applied equally to all techs eligible for theft. It wouldn't actually limit the number of possible thefts, it would just make it less probable that you steal a huge number while still allowing you a reasonable probability to steal a few. At the same time, buying more spies would still allow you to steal more, because it is not a hard limit, just a probability adjustment, and the probability still gets better with more spies. I was trying to solve the problem "How do you make it more difficult to steal 5 techs if I'm behind in 5 techs, without making it inordinately difficult to steal 1 tech if I'm behind in only 1 tech?" This technique solves that problem. Limiting it to one tech per turn is actually slightly harder to accomplish (we have to bear in mind that the SW can't just use the first tech to pass, that would bias towards certaint techs always being stolen and other techs never being stolen), and I think that being a hard limit it is less desirable (with high numbers of attacking spies you'd always steal exactly one tech, removing the uncertainty entirely). quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Art If you cannot (or are unwilling) to limit expenditures per turn for spies, maybe "rolling formulae" that reduce spying efficiency each turn would be an easier solution which would force players to keep investing into spies? This is more easily and straightforwardly attained by removing attacking spies, increasing their attrition rate. I think the most sensible way to do this is to make it more likely that you lose spies the more of them you have. You could even say that you round(die(number_attacking_spies)/10) (which on average is 5%) spies every turn, regardless of security, just to represent the ungoing cost of spying operations. Let me suggest 3 concepts, generically (details for my specific proposals are above) 1) the probability of theft reduces inversely to the number of techs you can steal, so it can be hard to steal all 10 if behind in 10 without being too hard to steal 1 if you are behind in 1. 2) attrit the number of spies in a way that you tend to lose more if you have more (two different ways suggested in the thread, modified security roll or straight proportional attrition independent of security). 3) you only benefit from spies this turn that you had at the beginning of the turn. Spies acquired this turn don't help until next turn.

Forwarn45 -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/6/2007 8:09:12 PM)
I appreciate the effort you are making to consider tweaks to the game, but I just don't think this is an area that needs much change other than increasing Japanese security a bit. I think that the more areas the enemy is ahead, the more opportunity for advancement by stealing secrets and/or reverse-engineering captured equipment from the battlefield. I don't know if I like the idea of "focused" spying. Although I might be persuaded it was a good idea to consider some type of change if the game was still in development, it just seems that the spy system has worked fairly well through a lot of play! The way the game plays, spying can be a long-term investment with somewhat mixed rewards as you can miss some turns due to the security roll, and then returns diminish as you begin to catch up to the enemy. Other than modifying Japanese security, the only type of suggested change I think I could get behind (which wouldn't affect balance, just the dynamics of investig in spies) - would be some type of limit on the per-turn investment in spies, security, sigint, etc. Just my 2 cents.

ArticFire -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/7/2007 5:03:30 AM)
Ya know , its a shame it woudl require UI tweaks to make it so that the more spys you have the more they start to cost to make more. There have been many limiting steps to prevent wonder weapons , spies really should be held to the same standard.

MrQuiet -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/7/2007 7:30:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Forwarn45 I appreciate the effort you are making to consider tweaks to the game, but I just don't think this is an area that needs much change other than increasing Japanese security a bit. I think that the more areas the enemy is ahead, the more opportunity for advancement by stealing secrets and/or reverse-engineering captured equipment from the battlefield. I don't know if I like the idea of "focused" spying. Although I might be persuaded it was a good idea to consider some type of change if the game was still in development, it just seems that the spy system has worked fairly well through a lot of play! The way the game plays, spying can be a long-term investment with somewhat mixed rewards as you can miss some turns due to the security roll, and then returns diminish as you begin to catch up to the enemy. Other than modifying Japanese security, the only type of suggested change I think I could get behind (which wouldn't affect balance, just the dynamics of investig in spies) - would be some type of limit on the per-turn investment in spies, security, sigint, etc. Just my 2 cents. This is pretty much exactly how I feel on the spy tweaking also. It pretty much works now I just feel Japan is to easy of a target for the wealthy WA. -MrQ

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/9/2007 9:40:48 AM)
Alright, looks like not much is going to change in the mechanics then! I think J security will be bumped to 12.

Lebatron -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/10/2007 2:16:37 AM)
In my most current setup of Uncommon Valor I'm using the following values. Germany- 12 security (was 10). 10 sigInt (was 6). Japan- 15 security (was 8). 5 sigInt (was 4). The rest unchanged. The stronger Axis security is intended to do three things. One, help prevent tech theft. Two, help preserve sigInt and spy levels. Third, to more aggressively knock down Allied levels. The sigInt increases help sustain some level a little longer. In the original scenarios it was common to see Japan's sigInt level brought to zero before 1942. Overall, I see nothing wrong with boosting both Axis in this way, since bonuses here do not necessarily mean a higher chance of AV or a victory shift. It just gives the allies one extra area of the game to have a slightly harder battle to overcome. In an even game, the Allies always have lots of supply mid to late game, and when that is spent on the sigInt and spy screen the Axis numbers really take a dive. To be fair, that trend is historical, but I feel the Allied effort to achieve that in this game has been to easy. Hence my reasons to increase more than just the Jap security to 15. I feel that Axis players would now be more inclined to consider investing more here, especially Japan. At 8 security it was to low to consider a serious bump up due to cost. That production was best used elsewhere IMO. But at 15 sec, bumping to say 20 where an impact would be felt looks like a possible choice now. If the Axis both shoot for 20 security early they could really bring the Allied levels down to were they could not catch up until late 42. Of coarse the Axis would have little tech sharing using this strat. That's minor anyway. To argue that increasing the Axis security hurts them in this way is missing the big picture. It helps the Axis in the mid to late game which is needed since balance there is a bit tilted to the Allies. Since some ideas have been thrown out there so I'll add a few. For those that don't like the idea of being able to steal tech that's only a point or two ahead, how about making it a requirement that the tech your about to steal has at least a GREEN beaker. In this way, when the UI normally shows that a tech is close to immenent breakthrough it will also be an indicator that its tech can be stolen too. Of coarse some percentages would have to be increased since you can't steal from red and yellow beakers of the same tech level. This was an idea I discussed with Joel Billings during dev but he was happy with 1 point being enough of a lead. I'm not sure if there is an easy way for Brian to bind the green beaker requirment to spying. It wouldn't be a big deal if he couldn't because making any changes like this would just require more playtesting to find the sweet spot. It been said a few times that spys win over security rather easily for their cost. The simplest thing to try would be to bump their cost from 3 to 5. That's all that may be needed. The KISS principle.

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/11/2007 9:22:18 AM)
KISS is good. What I was sort of hoping for is some way to make spying worthwhile for a few things without making it too beneficial for many things. Like a way for Germany to benefit some more from spying, when they spend much of the game ahead in many techs, without that also making the Allies benefit more from spying. It has sort of an all or nothing feel to it right now. I'd also like to see more of a requirement that sustained spying require sustained expense, which isn't really the case right now. But other than starting value tweaks, I can't see much happening here.

MrQuiet -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/13/2007 5:16:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lebatron In my most current setup of Uncommon Valor I'm using the following values. Germany- 12 security (was 10). �� 10 sigInt (was 6). Japan-�� 15 security (was 8). �� 5 sigInt (was 4). The rest unchanged. The stronger Axis security is intended to do three things. One, help prevent tech theft. Two, help preserve sigInt and spy levels. Third, to more aggressively knock down Allied levels. The sigInt increases help sustain some level a little longer. In the original scenarios it was common to see Japan's sigInt level brought to zero before 1942. Overall, I see nothing wrong with boosting both Axis in this way, since bonuses here do not necessarily mean a higher chance of AV or a victory shift. It just gives the allies one extra area of the game to have a slightly harder battle to overcome. In an even game, the Allies always have lots of supply mid to late game, and when that is spent on the sigInt and spy screen the Axis numbers really take a dive. To be fair, that trend is historical, but I feel the Allied effort to achieve that in this game has been to easy. Hence my reasons to increase more than just the Jap security to 15.� I feel that Axis players would now be more inclined to consider investing more here, especially Japan. At 8 security it was to low to consider a serious bump up due to cost. That production was best used elsewhere IMO. But at 15 sec, bumping to say 20 where an impact would be felt looks like a possible choice now. If the Axis both shoot for 20 security early they could really bring the Allied levels down to were they could not catch up until late 42. Of coarse the Axis would have little tech sharing using this strat. That's minor anyway. To argue that increasing the Axis security hurts them in this way is missing the big picture. It helps the Axis in the mid to late game which is needed since balance there is a bit tilted to the Allies. It been said a few times that spys win over security rather easily for their cost. The simplest thing to try would be to bump their cost from 3 to 5. That's all that may be needed. The KISS principle. Those starting axis levels look good to me and I would have to agree with Lebatrons reasoning. -MrQuiet

WanderingHead -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/14/2007 10:07:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrQuiet quote: ORIGINAL: Lebatron In my most current setup of Uncommon Valor I'm using the following values. Germany- 12 security (was 10). �� 10 sigInt (was 6). Japan-�� 15 security (was 8). �� 5 sigInt (was 4). The rest unchanged. Those starting axis levels look good to me and I would have to agree with Lebatrons reasoning. My only question here: was German signals intelligence ever as good as the Allied, even 1939? I ask from sheer ignorance. Otherwise, it seems mostly reasonable, given the police state of Germany and culture of Japan and comparing to the starting level of Russia (security 15). I'm still inclined to leave Japan a little lower.

Lebatron -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/14/2007 9:00:51 PM)
My new values are based on gut feeling. I know that the numbers I choose will lead to a greater effort on the Allies part to win the information war. Anything less would see the Axis giving in early or never investing at all. Why have this new feature in AWD if it isn't balanced? The way it's set up now gives the Allies another advantage long before they really need it. My philosophy in choosing the numbers I did was based on cost vs return for any Axis investment in this area of the game. The starting values got to be high enough to temp him to do so, yet not to high that it becomes a no-brainer to try and shut the Allies out of the info war. I believe my current values are well shy of that possible scenario so why scale them back? With additional playtesting I might even bump Axis values futher.

Marshall Art -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/15/2007 10:30:16 PM)
One could make the point that the surprise attack through the ardennes mountains vs. France in 1940, the rather surprise attack against the SU in 1941, to mention two main events of the early war, could be seen as evidence of a good level of German security, or the lack of good Allied espionage, which ever way you prefer. Until the enigma code was broken sometime during 1941 or 1942 IIRC there was not much useful intel the Allies were able to gather as far I can see. Definetly Japan's secrets were even closer protected which is which Japan's security should be higher than Germany's.

GKar -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/15/2007 10:53:48 PM)
I totally agree about your reasoning for Germany, the Allies were more or less a punching ball until 1941 and surprised often enough. I also agree that Japan's starting security should be higher although the Japanese code was broken relatively early in their war against the US if I recall correctly (1941/42).

Forwarn45 -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/17/2007 4:09:39 AM)
I think the Germans are more than capable of competing in the spy game until the mid or even late war, depending on how things go. Boosting Germany is unnecessary, IMO.

Razz1 -> RE: Tweak to spying needed? (10/21/2007 6:50:01 PM)
Why does everyone want to make a big jump? Up Japan to 10 and test the game. Balance in game play is key.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625