Partial successful missions

[UsF]

Doing espionage and sometimes diplomacy in HoI2 I wondered, why is there just success and failure? I mean for example in the espionage missions when you try to sabotage the enemies production. Why can't there be things like success, partial success and failure or even more., Where success means you disrupted the enemies production well, partial success either means a not so well disruption or maybe something else was disrupted due to low intelligence levels.
It could also be a completely failure where you do not disrupt anything and your spy is executed during the mission or just a failure, where your spy is still alive afterwards.

The same thing could be applied to assassinations. Partial success here could mean that when you try to for example assassinate the commander in chief and your assassination fails, you accidentally kill high ranking officers in the pool which are not assigned much like the failed assassination attempt on Hitler.

Last but not least, in diplomacy there could be failed attempts to invite other nations into your alliance and depending of the relations between you two, a complete failure here could be that he refuses and the relations suffer, a failure would mean just a refuse, a partial success however would mean a refusing, but a gain in relations.

It would remove the black and white feel of these missions and add a bit of dynamic interactions to them.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

Yeah I like this partial success idea. Could add yet another layer of detail. Of course there would likely need to be all sorts of random modifiers, etc... perhaps give spies a certain individual level.

Saying that, I'm not sure it fits in with the whole grand strategy thing so much?? That plus I believe Paradox have pretty much settled on what is in and what is not... hence the beta testing. Maybe something to look at for HoI4 haha!

 

[DarthJF]

I agree with this. It would make things more interesting.

 

[unmerged(50426)]

the general idea of your proposal is interesting, but i guess this adds only flavour to mp games, as a lot of people would reload if the ai succeded in killing officers. i guess theres maybe a tolerance for any player how much he will accept this kind of things happening to him, and if the ai tries this and that via sabotage i would ask myself why it spends so many resources to achieve a goal without any relevant impact.
as said, for mp games would it be very nice, but single player it is rather uninteresting.

Last but not least, in diplomacy there could be failed attempts to invite other nations into your alliance and depending of the relations between you two, a complete failure here could be that he refuses and the relations suffer

as far as i remeber it already works like this in armageddon

Palisadoes wrote:
Yeah I like this partial success idea. Could add yet another layer of detail. Of course there would likely need to be all sorts of random modifiers, etc... perhaps give spies a certain individual level

refering to a post on the last dd,

Originally Posted by Keynes View Post
The basic approach of setting priorities seems sound and an improvement on HOI2. However, it is not clear to me what purpose is served under such a system of having individal "spies".

The system as described seems to work as follows:
1) Available leadership + allocation of the that leadership to espionage --> Espionage Capability
2) Espionage Capabilities is used to generate "spies."
3) Player sets intelligence priorities
4) "Spies" are autosent in accordance with the priorities.
5) The "spies" give intelligence results.

It seems to me that steps 2 and 4 here are unnecessary. Why not just have the player determine the intel priorities and then have the level of Espionage Capability (as measured by the Leadership allocated to espionage) directly effect the results? The intermediate stage of covering capability into "spies" seems to serve no additional purpose under this system. ...

and as you already stated it wouldnt fit in the grand strategy sheme, its more a tactical feature rather than strategic

 

[Alex_brunius]

Its a great Idea.

Id want partial sucesses or collateral damage in ALL mission, not only diplomatic and espionage ones.

Say your bombers are on logistical strike mission, But the lower level commander finds out he is taking to much damage from flak, so instead he changes the order to supress some AA installations first before His main goal can be carried out sucessfully.

That mission would be neither a sucess or a failure.

Or if your bombing a railyard you could miss but still hit important nearby AA positions or Industrial complexes.

Another example is Port strikes. Damn no fleet is in port what do the airplanes do? Instead of just bombing harbour facilities your airplanes could supress or target AA and Convoy ships / escorts that are docked or patrolling near the Port. Or if they face alot of scrambled enemy aircrafts they could switch to supress those and mimize friendly casualties until given orders of new zones.

What Im looking for is commanders that can adapt to some extent themself. So that a Captain on Naval interdiction won't allow a fully loaded enemy convoy to pass just because hes not out hunting convoys right now. Using common sense any leader regardless off skills would have intercepted the convoy and either:
A: Sunk it if he was under time pressure. or
B: Captured it if hes got enough ships and are close to home ports.


What I mean with partial sucess in other missions is thus: Hey we didn't find/hit the main target off the mission, but we did find something else to drop our bombs or shoot at. Or we did find new Intel thats useful instead. Just something as simple as that can mean that a mission wasn't a complete waste of time.

HoI2 was far far to binary in this regard.