HEARTS OF IRON- My Conclusions and Suggestions - INTELLIGENCE
HEARTS OF IRON- MY CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
0. Introduction
Reaction to my technology thread was a disaster. I first thought that it was because of the weekend (I did get less replies on during the interface thread), or because a moderator merged two of my threads many people did not re-check my thread cause they didn’t know that I had already posted it.
Then I thought it was simply too long, but I made a shorter version of my original post (3 times shorter overall) and highlighted the essential part so that anyone could read 3 lines and know the concept of my technology system. Outcome? A single response in a week… Then I tried again, super short version (couple of sentences) and I got two…
Regardless what the reaction will be on this thread I will probably all the suggestions I planned, but it will determine how fast I will post them. It will probably be far shorter than of the previous threads.
I decided on the spot to make and post the normal and shorter version so…
ATTENTIONE: If you don’t have time read the shorter version (or part of it) below.
INTELLIGENCE
The intelligence often decided the fate of battle, however it is almost completely absent in HoI. You can acquire data about industry capacity, resources, or names of some enemy units. However this data is irrelevant and the mentioned combat aspect of intel does not exist at all. I want to change this and I want to make it a key element of combat. The intelligence will be a part of my “Command Center” concept.
1. Command center
It the concept I came up with would complicate combat, making it much more dramatic and at the same time provide feedback (guiding the player) so that the additional data would not make the game actually harder.
The command center would accumulate many important information about combat (e.g. from reports) and so on, but it’s main function would be making plans of invasions operations and so on.
The idea is to add the element of a “brilliant plan” into the game (as much as its possible). Some could be based on historical ones (not only ones actually realized but also proposed) as well as custom based on “Detailed province value system”. My proposition is to add special bonuses to plans above some value of quality. This would however require a general with enough skill and possibly specific attributes, accurate intelligence data (encrypting, decrypting, quality of intelligence), high quality of effective doctrines (you can’t build a brilliant plan on falls assumption of an ineffective doctrine), specific unit types (e.g. tanks).
Those plans would be prepared in advance (especially before e.g. new war, theatre etc.). It could (obviously) evolve as the over time, but the earlier it would be prepared the better chances are of succeeding (more time to prepare = better plan). Those plans could be intercepted by the enemy. It would also allow for deception, the player would prepare decoy plans and sometimes try to make the enemy get a hold of them (probability).The game would always be aware with plan is real and taking into account all affecting factors would determine if he gets the correct or falls.
It would also allow for more detailed planning of allied operations.
The question is, should plans be voluntary or mandatory? Even without the plans the intelligence system is pretty solid. However it could pose some potential problems especially with oversea invasions (e.g. island warfare). A possible compromise would be setting mandatory plans for majors or something along those lines.
1.1 Plan B
Now it is obvious that even the best plan won’t go exactly how the author intended it to be, because of the many variables that are involved and often requires luck to execute. A solution for this problem would be giving the player some freedom (of place, time- the operation would have a dead line) in execution, of course too much and he\she\it (AI) losses bonuses associated with the plan (those would not include or be very limited considering strategic goals). Of course making exceptions (assuming that it’s the best occurs of action) from the plan would cause penalties itself.
2. Detailed province values system
Is a concept with would allow to estimate exact value of every province under a large number of factors. It would help the player and AI to determine the point of attack and defense and those factors would be:
Natural:
-
terrain value would be dependent on the type of operation.
-
weather would include prognosis and seasons.
Tactical:
-
strength of forces on the opposite side would also be an important factor. The weak spot would be the most logical point of attack, but destroying a large concentration would be much more decisive.
-
element of surprise (or its lack) did determine the fate of many operations. It would depend on the opponent’s perception of a certain area as a potential point of attack (not necessarily an invaluable province).
-
fortifications, less fortifications = better.
Strategic:
-
operational cost would be especially important when considering sea invasions.
-
supply depots could serve as an aid for a strained logistic system and allow for the army to operate for free.
-
airfields are crucial for air support.
-
ports allowed the attacking army to sustain momentum and were most important in therms of logistics.
-
infrastructure would determine the suitability for attack and could suggest attack with cripple enemy logistics (e.g. trunk line).
-
capital is the head of the country. It was often thought (and it often was that way) that a country can’t fight without it.
-
industry is another way of crippling a country and an important strategic objective.
-
resources, does it need an explanation?
The value of a province would be calculated for every single of those factors, for different profiles (strategic, tactical etc.) and as a total. The player would be able to customize factors he is interested in. Single province values would help to set immediate targets, however groups of provinces would help set long therm objectives for whole campaigns.
3. The front shift
The reason why enemy plans were often reveled was that preparations for operations were associated with massing forces. Basically if a shift on the front occurs and the intelligence is aware of that (with it almost always was) then the player will be informed about that as well as about possible areas of reassembly and possible objective.
How would the game register this? I would say at least 7% (probably it should be more, but I’m just caution) of frontline divisions shifted from one area to another and a 15% increase in the shift area. Those areas could be army group operational areas or corps (only for this purpose). I used percentage so that it would detect movement in smaller theatres. To reduce the amount of unnecessary massages the changes would not be noted if the massing force is too small to conduct an attack (e.g. less than 50% of strength at a given place). Similar to the plan, front shift could be used to deceive the enemy (including using decoy units).
4. Stance (perception)
Countries did often use different criteria for defining the area of the where the enemy will strike and where is the best place for them to attack (The best way to achieve strategic knock out). Some did see the strategic goals (or a particular one) and some would choose the tactical objective. Some tried to do that by e.g. destroying army (mobile warfare, attrition warfare etc.), covering most ground (industry, resources etc.) and capturing capital. All of this depended on how they perceived warfare.
For example the French did exclude fortified area and terrain unsuitable for tanks as the possible place of main attack and assumed that the Germans will try to execute the Schlieffen plan. The Germans staged a fake attack right when the French expected it and reinforced their assumptions. This made them ignore signs with suggested that the attack was placed elsewhere.
Another example is the Russians in 1942. They were so sure that Germans will continue their assault on Moscow that they totally ignored intelligence information with suggested otherwise like the fact that it was in contrary to the idea of blitzkrieg (element of surprise). At Kursk they did the same thing, but this time the German did attack where they expected this and there were intel data with supported this.
Representing this would be very easy. Setting higher priority for preferred factor, however recreating their evolution in an elastic way would be much harder.
It would change the probability of an accurately interpreting data. Its purpose would be to deceive the player and AI and to introduce more unpredictability to the system.
5. Intelligence quality
The probability of accurate intelligence report would depend on the quality of intelligence (along with intel technology). It could be done just like now with leadership (without changes), or with a preset (adjustable) value of intelligence skill (with I would prefer). It would determine how probable noticing shifts, plans and correctly interpreting this data…
5.1 Data interpretation
…But also as I said earlier on how a country perceives warfare (probably also doctrine). This would determine with criteria would be discriminated in favor of others and this kind of processed data would be presented to the player (or AI).
5.2 Recommended course of action
Whenever the player would want to attack or the enemy would be suspected to prepare any operation. The player would be informed about a possible target with would be presented according to probability (with would be defined by perception, not actuality).
5.3 Reinforced delusion
Reinforced delusion is how I call my way of recreating countries leadership over optimism, ignorance and lack of critical thinking. It was often caused by previous experiences (prejudice) and was seen by many as correct at the time. Like in the French example (WWI experience) a staged attack in the anticipated location made them totally blind for every other signs and possibilities. It would be the extreme of misinterpreting data and would with the highest probability lead to incorrect conclusions.
To clarify, this is reinforced “delusions” with means that those conclusions were drawn under falls premise. If they would be assumed under correct (and full) information then it would be the most probable version.
6. Closing comment
The front shift in conjunction with the plans and “detailed province values” and so on would make a very good intelligence system and in my opinion add much more emotions and spice into the combat system. It would be also useful and the player would no longer be totally in the blue when he is attacked.
