Intelligence errors

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Intelligence errors

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Intelligence errors - 10/23/2008 1:25:13 AM

Lucky1

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

Although I realize that this not the type of thing to be implemented with this game at this stage, I am putting this up for comment (perhaps developers might snoop fora in the future when designing yet another WWII grand strategy game).

Generally speaking, I think AWD is quite excellent. However, I do think it falls a bit flat in terms of diplomacy and intelligence. The former, I have raised before and will not revisit here. In terms of intelligence, I was thinking about all the deceptions that were executed on a major scale in WWII (e.g. Patton's imaginary army to land at Pas de Calais, fake build-ups on the eastern front etc). Too, there is simply the uncertainty of war - although you could have a good idea, one could never really know how many troops were in a given area (or you could discount the info, a la Market Garden). I suppose this abstracted in the form of a SigInt bonus. But it would be fun to take it further. Specifically, it would be interesting to have a measure of variability introduced into what one saw, as opposed to what is really there. This could be modified according to how much one had invested in Signals Intelligence. The result might be that one might miss a certain percentage of troops or perceive a certain percentage of troops that are not there (both would be modified by sigint). Of course, once an attack were committed to, the actual units would be used.

What do others think?

Cheers,

Sean

Post #: 1

RE: Intelligence errors - 10/23/2008 12:26:39 PM

rjh1971

Posts: 4919
Joined: 12/13/2005
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

In War Between The States the number of enemy units you see in The Military Forces Screen doesn't correspond with the real numbers the other side has, iirc it was randomize, it could be done in this game as well say you randomly multiply the exact amount of each kind of troops by a number between 0.8 and 1.5 rounded up or down if the decimals are bigger or smaller than 0.5.

Say for example the japs have 4 cvs and they get a fow factor of 1.2 that would make 4.8 cv so the program would show 5 cv misleading the allies since they only have 4. The game could not show less than three japs cv until some of them were sunk, since the japs start with three of them built, don't think any player would scratch a flattop, at least until very late in the war when japan is blockaded.

Same could be applied for the info about production.

Also the interval could be greater if the player invests in SigInt as Lucky one appoints, say you have over 15 in Sigint the interval could be between .5 and 1.8 (if you think the enemy has less forces it also misleads the enemy (nasty surprise)

Investing in security and reducing enemy SigInt would make the interval samller and thus giving more accurate info.

Anyway unless Brian thinks this is a superb idea don't think it would be implemented, but its fun talking about what ifs ...

_____________________________

GG's AWD, GG's WBTS, GG's WitE Beta Tester
Beta Tester: Panzer Corps, Time of Fury, CtGW, DC CB, DC3 Barbarossa, SC WWII WiE, SC WWII WaW, SC WWI

(in reply to Lucky1)

Post #: 2

RE: Intelligence errors - 10/24/2008 6:44:51 AM

Lucky1

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

rjh1971 raises a point that I had not considered. Even if it weren't possible to implement on the map, it would be interesting to consider in terms of the production / current info screens as is seemingly done in WBTS. This would be especially interesting in terms of build queues, existing forces and, most notably, supply. I was always a bit surprised that I could look at the forces screen to see what units my opponent had and whether he had enough supply to conduct an offensive etc. ...

(in reply to rjh1971)

Post #: 3

RE: Intelligence errors - 10/25/2008 4:04:43 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

I do agree that the diplomacy and intelligence game could be more interesting. I think that the diplomacy is alright for what it is (basically a reasonable disincentive against unreasonable actions, like Germany invading Spain), but doesn't provide much to play with. Intelligence I am not so happy with, because it doesn't really serve the same fundamental purpose yet still doesn't provide much interest.

One thing that I think would improve diplomacy is if the harch penalties against the USA WR for WA attack of Vichy and Italy were removed, and a simple (probably d2) WR penalty for *any* attack of a neutral were imposed. This rule is more general, and I think more sensible (I don't know why Britain attacking neutral Italy would disincentivize the USA any more than Britain attacking Portugal ... if anything it seems the opposite).

But that's a tweak to the existing game, not really replacing the fundamental mechanics.

(in reply to Lucky1)

Post #: 4

RE: Intelligence errors - 10/29/2008 12:51:55 AM

Lucky1

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

Hmmm. I am not sure what to think about removing the penalty vs. Italy (and perhaps Vichy. Is there a similar one for Spain?). I think this attempts to model the historic improbability of the UK (alone, with her former colonies) expanding the war to include Vichy or Italy at a time where it generally made absolutely no sense to do so. The last thing that isolated England would have wished to do was increase the number of her opponents at a time when she was on the ropes. Certainly, it would make no sense the threaten her territories in the Med etc. Furthermore, up until the fall of France, Italy was definitely quite neutral, albeit with with obvious Axis leanings. Mussolini wanted no part of Hitler's war for Poland and was generally not prepared for a major war against a real opponent. The only reason she declared war was because it appeared that her opponents were already finished - France was knocked out and that England had all but lost (with her army savaged at Dunkirque (sp?)). Certainly, she would have never joined if she knew about Hitler's plans for Russia (of which she truly despaired when these were discovered). So, although I do not wish for it to be impossible to attack Italy or Vichy, this move is rather opportunistic and really makes sense only when one knows (as we in the game know) that Italy will join the war with the Axis. As such, I think it should incur a penalty.

However, I can also see the point that relatively little might be gained from attacking Italy early. One loses the Italian surrender rule and provides Germany with Italian production (rather than supplies) early on (although I am not sure whether this amounts to a real difference - when receiving supplies Germany does not have build them and can thus focus on tech and troops). In the GG mod, an early Italy attack would result in a dead transport and perhaps the easy loss of Sicily or Sardinia. Perhaps S. Italy might be susceptible to amphib assault in some of the scenarios.

I think that a differential penalty should be applied, with a distinction made between DOWs vs major or minor countries. (I believe this is almost the case now). Similarly, the Monroe Doctrine should also be applied (if it is not) to any DOW (as unlikely as they might seem) or assault on the Western Hemisphere. Frankly (as is the case today - take the Sudan for exampe), some countries matter to the US a lot more than other countries. The US would have been much more vexed by an invasion of Italy or Spain than of Bulgaria or Greece.... (of course, there were way more Italians in the US at that time, so they had more clout.)

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 5

RE: Intelligence errors - 11/9/2008 4:28:30 AM

Lucky1

Posts: 383
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

What do people think about being able see what�intelligence is being stolen? Personally, I find this a little illogical (if I knew about the tech steal, why didn't I prevent it?). More importantly, it makes players less likely to engage in espionnage. Already, huge amounts (approx 2-3 spies for 1 counter-espionnage) need to expended to steal tech with any regular payout. In principle, this is fine. However, when I am able to see when tech is being stolen, it is very easy for me to adjust my�defence�to make it too prohibitive for tech steals to be worthwhile. I was wondering whether there would be support for removing the tech theft info from the turn summary (i.e., non listed when one hits 'E').

< Message edited by Lucky1 -- 11/9/2008 9:27:29 AM >

(in reply to Lucky1)

Post #: 6