-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It could be made less tedious.Strategos' Risk said:
The typical "give me a blueprint" routine requires winning 11 separate random tests at a success chance never higher than 45%.
Click, fail, click, fail, click, fail, click, fail, click, fail.
It's so annoying, I don't use it as much as I could.
What I'd like would be some way of saying "spy against these countries as long as my cash is sufficient."
I made a thread some time ago intelligence and espionage for hoi3. what do you think of some of the ideas?
It all sounds good, though I'm also wondering about what you think about assassinations and coups.
I've (almost) never used them, so I'm not really sure what might need improving, though I think that assassination should be extended to leaders as well. neither should be easy to do by any means--I mean, just look at the one historically notable assassination attempt, on hitler's life. it failed, but gives a good example of the myriad of things that can go wrong at any point up from the beginning of the assassination plot right down to its last seconds.
as for coups, as far as I can tell it shouldn't be much changed for neutral/hostile countries. for allied countries, there should be a bit more of a chance imho cause, well, you're bloody allies--and if you move divisions into their country the chance should increase as they get closer to the capital as it'd be ridiculous to have 6 divisions in their capital compared to one of theirs, attempt a coup and for it to fail. but of course that just begs the question, why the hell are you cuoping an ally?
as for coups, as far as I can tell it shouldn't be much changed for neutral/hostile countries. for allied countries, there should be a bit more of a chance imho cause, well, you're bloody allies--and if you move divisions into their country the chance should increase as they get closer to the capital as it'd be ridiculous to have 6 divisions in their capital compared to one of theirs, attempt a coup and for it to fail. but of course that just begs the question, why the hell are you cuoping an ally?
Intelligence is pretty bad. It in no way reflects the actual situation of the time. It should basically be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch. Have each country have domestic and foreign intelligence services, with actual names like OS and the secret service. Have them focus their operations on certain things, the money aspect of diplomacy really bothers me too.
First idea from DasReboot's post on the root forum: intelligence should be able to pick up more than just the numbers of divisions of enemy troops - their status as regards readiness to attack (i.e. if 'unit statuses' are used, which might be a good way to handle the buildup needed before a major attack, this status should be - possibly - visible). It seems very odd at present that attacking for 1 hour will get you complete information on the enemy leader, unit identities, types and strengths and much else but OpInt will never give you any of this.
Secondly, information gained 'in the field' should feed back to the intelligence reports. Several times I have seen "We are almost sure they have 0 armoured divisions" after I have fought one in battle!! I understand inter-service rivalry and all, but physical proof seems likely to be accepted as worth a change in the paperwork...
Thirdly there should be a possibility to see units not in adjacent provinces. These should maybe be visible as semi-transparent 'units' with possible extra information as per 'firstly', above.
Fourthly, counterintelligence should have more to do than kill spies. Misinformation was a major factor in WW2. Some of Rommel's reported first words on arriving in North Africa were "I want you to build me some tanks!"; seeing the shocked face of the officer addressed, he went on "You can fit some wooden and canvas frames onto some kubelwagens, can you not?"... The 'fake divisions' for D-Day are well known and a German bombing raid flattened a patch of desert instead of the port of Alexandria due to a stage magician using his techniques on a grand scale for the British Army! So - the CG missions should include generating 'fake' formations (which show up as translucent units, just as others seen by OpInt behind the border provinces should) and providing 'defence' values for bombing targets.
Finally, just to repeat what others have said, the current system of building up spies sucks. Embedding agents is a partly opportunistic thing; Intelligence expenditure should be more like a slider that generates a chance that the 'intelligence network' in each target nation increases (or decreases). A general stance (high priority infiltrate, build-up, status quo, relax) for each country should suffice, affecting the progress in improving the network and also relation change, chance of 'incidents' and so on. The only player input is to change the slider or the stance towards each country as required.
Secondly, information gained 'in the field' should feed back to the intelligence reports. Several times I have seen "We are almost sure they have 0 armoured divisions" after I have fought one in battle!! I understand inter-service rivalry and all, but physical proof seems likely to be accepted as worth a change in the paperwork...
Thirdly there should be a possibility to see units not in adjacent provinces. These should maybe be visible as semi-transparent 'units' with possible extra information as per 'firstly', above.
Fourthly, counterintelligence should have more to do than kill spies. Misinformation was a major factor in WW2. Some of Rommel's reported first words on arriving in North Africa were "I want you to build me some tanks!"; seeing the shocked face of the officer addressed, he went on "You can fit some wooden and canvas frames onto some kubelwagens, can you not?"... The 'fake divisions' for D-Day are well known and a German bombing raid flattened a patch of desert instead of the port of Alexandria due to a stage magician using his techniques on a grand scale for the British Army! So - the CG missions should include generating 'fake' formations (which show up as translucent units, just as others seen by OpInt behind the border provinces should) and providing 'defence' values for bombing targets.
Finally, just to repeat what others have said, the current system of building up spies sucks. Embedding agents is a partly opportunistic thing; Intelligence expenditure should be more like a slider that generates a chance that the 'intelligence network' in each target nation increases (or decreases). A general stance (high priority infiltrate, build-up, status quo, relax) for each country should suffice, affecting the progress in improving the network and also relation change, chance of 'incidents' and so on. The only player input is to change the slider or the stance towards each country as required.
1. There should be extremely rare espionage "Research" projects, like cracking Enigma or Operation Mincemeat. Or the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich.
2. Not so much espionage related, but there should be better ways to handle "extranational" entities like governments-in-exile, partisan armies, unrecognized irregular nations, resistance movements, and so on.
2. Not so much espionage related, but there should be better ways to handle "extranational" entities like governments-in-exile, partisan armies, unrecognized irregular nations, resistance movements, and so on.
because all tech trees are the same (only the start tech is different) it would be complicated to do this, but I have an idea.
how about 3 trees (against allies, against axis, against comintern).
germany has all tech against axis from start (to prevent that very silly user researches something against himself and because germany would have a realistic espionage bonus against japan if germany would want to do espionage). the other 2 trees are possible to research and would give bonuses against allies/comintern.
how about 3 trees (against allies, against axis, against comintern).
germany has all tech against axis from start (to prevent that very silly user researches something against himself and because germany would have a realistic espionage bonus against japan if germany would want to do espionage). the other 2 trees are possible to research and would give bonuses against allies/comintern.
There really wasn't a single 'cracking' of Enigma - it was more like a battle that swung to and fro as first one side and then the other gained advantage. Maybe Have a basic OpInt chance against each other country that improves or reduces over time depending on the investment you make into it and the target's counter-investment? So, instead of 0-10 spies, have a fluctuating % value. The investment level also affects the 'drift' of your relations with the target. Intelligence 'special operations' don't rely on this or, necessarily, affect it.Strategos' Risk said:
Deception, misinformation and sabotage missions, supporting dissidents and partisans, 'black' propaganda, assassination and so on should be more like "research". Operatives in this area ought to have skills much like those of research teams and should have to be positioned in order to act. Acting should place them at some risk in some cases. I like the idea of this a lot - intelligence "teams", each with a skill set, that must be first 'inserted' (or just emplaced, if they are to operate in your own territory - 'leave behinds' would thus be easier to establish than insertions) and then have a 'battle' type engagement to decide the mission outcome.
Agreed - coup attempts, for example, should be support for specific dissident groups, not just a generalised "rabble rousing". Links to espionage in that embassies are important conduits for insertion/basing of intelligence activity and also represent a political 'presence'.Strategos' Risk said:
Balesir said:
Having rethought my idea (I originally was going to suggest a way to model historical events like the ones I mentioned earlier, but that's a whole can of worms), I think your ideas are solid. Having an Espionage section for Research seems quite good. There, you can develop teams for generic yet specific ideas - cracking enemy encryption (for Enigma), planning out an elaborate assassination (like the murder of Heydrich), and so on, but they wouldn't exactly tied in to the historical events. That way not only can you simulate historical espionage events, but also alternate ones, like say getting the Japanese to break the Navajo code.
Balesir said:
Sounds great! Should give the historical researchers of Paradox more ways to earn their keep. After all, if fans can make alternate cabinets with almost every ideology under the sun, why can't Paradox at least track down and simulate the main resistance groups in WWII? They can try to limit to the major ones, and it seems like in theory, it'll be like political parties in Victoria.
This is ingenious. Unfortunately, there were plenty of great ideas in hoi1's forum that were probably not even considered. Even though the likelihood that your ideas will be implemented in any form is slim, I hope paradox doesn't keep intel as a rushed gimmick to sell more copies.Balesir said:
Hear, hear.ulmont said:
If it remains money-based, set a budget for each country, and set priorities - nice and simple. None of this "send spy" stuff. The engine would handle the gradual development of the network w/in each country. If you had a budget, but no priorities, the focus would be on network development. The impact of the money would be bell curved - you need a certain amount to get anything worthwhile, but you would reach a saturation point.
On a small point, shouldn't intelligence be less effective in countries at war? - no embassy, no citizens in foreign residence, etc.
I agree that diplomacy should be similarly simplified. It's really tedious to do this stuff every eight days, but if you're, say, pre-war U.S., you feel obliged not to let the money waste away (though it does anyway).
Last edited:
I'd go for spy-teams, analogous to tech teams, but performing espionage missions, with different teams being differently good at different specialities (Betchley Park would do good at figuring out where enemy units are and at what strength, but for stirring up partisans you better call the SOE). Of course, the spy teams on the opposite side on "defense" missions would also need to figure in (making it quite hard to get something done against the USSR's NKVD).
Spy teams seem like a very solid idea. I think the only possible issue is that historically, there weren't as many possible sources of espionage in all countries in the '30s to '50s to satisfy the game's historical flavor, as opposed to research (which consists of military and industrial entities too, not just scientists).
I like the idea of an intelligence budget slider, like we already have for domestic spending, production and upgrades. However, it shouldn't be possible to flood your intel services with money and get proportional results - anything over a certain expense ought to have diminishing returns.
Bear in mind some of the major intelligence coups of WW2:
* The discovery of Fall Gelb (Case Yellow) came about because a German courier was captured by the Allies - sheer coincidence.
* The British captured an Enigma machine from an armed German trawler off the coast of Norway in April 1940 - again, sheer coincidence. (Further decryption work was lengthy and complicated and all due respect is owed to the code breakers, but their task was made easier by the capture)
* The job of cracking the Japanese Navy code took the US 20 years of hard work. It didn't just begin after Pearl Harbor. Without that advantage, the US victory at Midway would have been highly unlikely.
My point is that there is a large element of randomness and unpredictability in intel work. It's important, but it's also not something you can just chase with money and will to happen.
Bear in mind some of the major intelligence coups of WW2:
* The discovery of Fall Gelb (Case Yellow) came about because a German courier was captured by the Allies - sheer coincidence.
* The British captured an Enigma machine from an armed German trawler off the coast of Norway in April 1940 - again, sheer coincidence. (Further decryption work was lengthy and complicated and all due respect is owed to the code breakers, but their task was made easier by the capture)
* The job of cracking the Japanese Navy code took the US 20 years of hard work. It didn't just begin after Pearl Harbor. Without that advantage, the US victory at Midway would have been highly unlikely.
My point is that there is a large element of randomness and unpredictability in intel work. It's important, but it's also not something you can just chase with money and will to happen.
While I agree with your basic points and there need to be semi-random 'coups' that give significant Intel boosts as well as diminishing returns on expenditure, we should not get carried away with the idea that 'Enigma was cracked due to a captured trawler'. See here for an article that not only makes it clear that significant progress made before this capture (which was one of several, in fact), but also describes the seesaw nature of the "battle" to decrypt encrypted German messages.TMahon said:
I would love to see more operational intel from the intelligence system. For example a bonus to convoy raiding vs a nation if you have a certain infiltration level, or perhaps notification events if their ships leave port. For example if I have a high infiltration vs Great Britain and they sea transport troops to Egypt I would have a chance of being notified when it was leaving, by what route and it's destination.
That's pretty much what I saidBalesir said:
The trawler capture made it easier, but it wasn't the whole story.
OK, fair 'nuff
Maybe there should be some sort of 'random blueprint' effect. Money and will might not be enough on their own, but without them all the opportunities will be missed...
Maybe there should be some sort of 'random blueprint' effect. Money and will might not be enough on their own, but without them all the opportunities will be missed...