Option 63 -- Intelligence

[wfzimmerman]

I have been reading the text of Option 63, intelligence. It seems like the basic idea is paying build points for luck. In theory the mechanics of the option would allow for very elaborate back and forth.

Amazingly, it looks as if Chris Marinacci has already successfully implemented this insanely difficult-to-code option in CWIF.

My question, for people who play with this option in regular WIF-- does anyone ever actually build intelligence points? My gut reaction is that I would never want to start building them and that the only way I would consider it is for in some form of gamesmanship -- e.g. trying to trick my opponent into buying too many.

[lomyrin]

CWiF did not have intelligence implemented.

In WiFFE play I have played with intelligence in many games and also without it in many games.

The option can cause important shifts in initiative and combat odds, it can be very powerful and most players seem to not use it.

Lars

[wfzimmerman]

O\RIGINAL: lomyrin

CWiF did not have intelligence implemented.

In WiFFE play I have played with intelligence in many games and also without it in many games.

The option can cause important shifts in initiative and combat odds, it can be very powerful and most players seem to not use it.

Lars

Oh, ok, I stand corrected. It does look like it will be an absolute nightmare to code.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

O\RIGINAL: lomyrin

CWiF did not have intelligence implemented.

In WiFFE play I have played with intelligence in many games and also without it in many games.

The option can cause important shifts in initiative and combat odds, it can be very powerful and most players seem to not use it.

Lars

Oh, ok, I stand corrected. It does look like it will be an absolute nightmare to code.

Sort of a combination Hitchcock and Felini nightmare.

Most of the problem has to do with designing an interface to enable the player to do all the things that he is capable of doing under this option.

[Froonp]

Most of the problem has to do with designing an interface to enable the player to do all the things that he is capable of doing under this option.

- For the "Examine a random half of the entry markers of 1 other major power", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into this menu item to choose this option. All Intelligence menu items could be regrouped in a single "Intelligence" menu item, with all others items as submenus.

- For the "Randomly add 1 land, naval or aircraft unit to your force pool from next year’s builds", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into it to choose this option.

- For the "Add ± 1 to any one die roll", I see it by the addition of a checkbox in every dialog after which dices will be rolled. Checking this checkbox just tells the computer that Intell will be applied to the die roll (0, +1 or -1 will be added to the die roll). This could also be a menu item, but it would be tricky to enter the menu item at the right moment.

- For the "Re-roll 1 die", I see it as a command menu that will be always be available just after any dices are rolled.

- For the "Secretly roll the next weather roll (or examine the next one if already rolled)", a menu item would work fine.

- For the "Secretly roll the next initiative roll", a check box in the Initiative dialog would allow the player to tell the computer that he wants to use intell here to roll the next init and attribute it to his or the enemy side. There should be some sort of "I will roll Initiative" dialog displayed before init is rolled, and the checkbox should be here.

- For the "Subtract half of another major power's intelligence points", a menu item would be fine.

- For the "Examine either side’s (but not both) next initiative roll if already determined", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Move a randomly chosen entry marker from either US entry pool to the other or from either US tension pool to the other", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Give intelligence points to any other active major power on your side", a menu item would be fine too.

Patrice

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Most of the problem has to do with designing an interface to enable the player to do all the things that he is capable of doing under this option.

- For the "Examine a random half of the entry markers of 1 other major power", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into this menu item to choose this option. All Intelligence menu items could be regrouped in a single "Intelligence" menu item, with all others items as submenus.

- For the "Randomly add 1 land, naval or aircraft unit to your force pool from next year’s builds", a menu item would be fine. The player would just go into it to choose this option.

- For the "Add ± 1 to any one die roll", I see it by the addition of a checkbox in every dialog after which dices will be rolled. Checking this checkbox just tells the computer that Intell will be applied to the die roll (0, +1 or -1 will be added to the die roll). This could also be a menu item, but it would be tricky to enter the menu item at the right moment.

- For the "Re-roll 1 die", I see it as a command menu that will be always be available just after any dices are rolled.

- For the "Secretly roll the next weather roll (or examine the next one if already rolled)", a menu item would work fine.

- For the "Secretly roll the next initiative roll", a check box in the Initiative dialog would allow the player to tell the computer that he wants to use intell here to roll the next init and attribute it to his or the enemy side. There should be some sort of "I will roll Initiative" dialog displayed before init is rolled, and the checkbox should be here.

- For the "Subtract half of another major power's intelligence points", a menu item would be fine.

- For the "Examine either side’s (but not both) next initiative roll if already determined", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Move a randomly chosen entry marker from either US entry pool to the other or from either US tension pool to the other", a menu item would be fine too.

- For the "Give intelligence points to any other active major power on your side", a menu item would be fine too.

Patrice

Thanks. That's a great start.

Just for future reference, it is 1 die and 2 dice. I don't know where that derives from; there is also one mouse and 2 mice.

Back to the intel stuff. The rules seem a little loose about modifying die rolls. Rolling a die comes up a lot. It could be quite bothersome to always have to consider the option to modify the rolls before rolling them during an air combat. But I haven't looked into this fully yet.

[Mziln]

The cost in inteligence points:

1 Examine a random half of the USA entry markers of a major power.
3 You can add a unit even if your force pools are not empty.
5 Modify a die or dice roll add 1, subtract 1 or apply no modifier to the result
15 You can re-roll any dice roll
3 Secretly roll the next weather roll or examine the next one if already rolled
5 Secretly roll the next initiative roll
* Attempt to subtract half another major power’s intelligence
1 Examine either side’s (but not both) next initiative roll if already determined
3 For every 2 intelligence points you assign to this operation you can give 1 to any other active major power on your side
x20 Randomly move a chosen entry marker from one USA entry or tension pool to another.

* Die roll for amount of Intelligence points lost

1 build point spent on intelligence is equal to 1 Intelligence operation.

Intelligence operations are subject to Gearing Limits as a separate class.

This doesn't list all the restrictions or requirements.

[Froonp]

1 build point spent on intelligence is equal to 1 Intelligence point.

No.

1 BP spent on Intelligence buys 1 Operation Point (OP).
Every Active Major Power also gets 1 Free OP.
Example : If you're an active major power and you spend 2 BP on Intell, you have 3 OP.

With those OP you can buy either die rolls, or multiples.

Generaly, 1 OP buys only one multiple, OR one die, except the USA for whom 1 OP can buy 2 Dice OR 2 multiples, and the CW & Germany who can buy 2 dice OR 1 multiple with their OP.

Example : If you are the USA, with the 3 OP mentionned above, you can obtain 4 Dice AND 2 multiples if you want, or 2 Dice AND 4 multiples, or 6 Dice, or 6 Multiples.

Then, every side roll the total number of its dice.

There is an Axis best Roll and an Allied best Roll. The winner calculate the difference between both. If it is equal, the Allies win having a difference of 1.

The winner side make the major powers on its side, who have multiples, to gain Intell points equal to the difference multiplied by the multiple.

Example :
Axis : 4 dice, Italy 1 multiple, Japan 1 multiple.
Allied : 8 dice, USA 4 multiples, USSR 3 multiples, China 1 multiple.

Best Axis roll : 8
Best Allied roll : 10

Difference : 2

So the USA gain 8 Intell points, the USSR gain 6, and China gets 2.
Italy and Japan gain nothing.

[Mziln]

Keep a written record of how many intelligence points (IP[&:]) each major power accumulates.

You can’t spend intelligence points (IP[&:]) in The Surprise Impulse if you are surprised in that impulse.

If both sides want to spend intelligence points (IP[&:]) at the same time, the side with the initiative spends them first.

Pre-determined dice rolls can still be modified or re-rolled by spending intelligence points (IP[&:]) .

In the peace step that a major power’s home country (the UK only for the Commonwealth) is conquered, or a Vichy government installed, that major power loses all accumulated intelligence points (IP[&:]) and the conquering major power gains half of them.



Shouldnt Operation Point (OP) be Inteligence Operation (IO) since it refers to a die roll(s) instead of actual points [&:]

This is a 56 hour work week for me and I'm still partialy asleep [>:]

[Froonp]

Shouldnt Operation Point (OP) be Inteligence Operation (IO) since it refers to a die roll(s) instead of actual points

Sorry, you are right.

RAW calls them Intelligence Operation (IO), and MWiF should call them this way too.

Operation Point (OP) must either come from a ghost of WiF past, because we use this term at our table.

[wfzimmerman]

The mechanics of the rule seem pretty clever and as if they would add to gameplay (or at least to gamesmanship).

I am scratching my head a little over whether the rule feels historically accurate enough (I phrase it that way to avoid getting into the perennial debate over simulation v. game).

I wonder if, in theory, in "MWIF 2011" (issued after the triumphant platinum edition of MWIF 1 in 2006), one could make a better intelligence option by selectively turning fog of war on and off.

[Froonp]

I am scratching my head a little over whether the rule feels historically accurate enough (I phrase it that way to avoid getting into the perennial debate over simulation v. game).

I for one like it a lot, and combined with a clever use of the "Initiative" / "Play First" system, having loads of Intell can be vey helpfull in lots of ways : Having initiative nearly anytime you want, knowing the weather of the first impulse before choosing who plays first (important because often the first impule's weather will help making the turn a good or / weather long / short turn), avoiding bad die rolls (15 points), helping search rolls, helping combat rolls are the main examples.
This rule give the Allies a big advantage (the Axis almost never manage at reaching more than 10 intell points in the whole game, and the Allies can go over 100 sometimes -- I as the USA once earned about 80 intell points in a single intell phase, only to expend nearly 60 in the following turn re-rolling dices, buying init, and giving bonuses everywhere), and I think that it is quite historical because the Allies were more advantaged by Intelligence in WWII.

[Matt242]

They certainly were. It was the Axis to conquer foreign countries, having millions of potential spies behind their frontline.

Your example however, Patrice, shows exactly what imho should not happen in WiF. Using intelligence this way can change a game completely within a single impulse. Is that really desirable? There are already too many situations where this could happen...

Since release of final edition, the Allies have been bolstered again and again to give them what they "should" have. (two considerable production boosts for the USSR, many more resources and factories for the USA and the CW just to mention a few changes). You will always find a reason for an advantage they "should" get - simply because they won this war and wrote ALL history about it...

My cent is: WiF should be a game. It will only make fun for as long as it remains exciting. Exploiting all imaginable assets for the Allies may be accurate. May be. But will it help to keep the game interesting? I don't think so.

However, the other reason for our group not to include intelligence is: It costs additional time. Additionally it increases the factor of luck where less would be better. After all we want to prove our strategic abilities not our patience to roll dice all the time and attend the results after consideration of their value in certain situations. There are more than enough really important matters to think about, i guess.

Intelligence is very good for DoD - and this is a game where it should matter.

[stewart_king]

We used the intel rules in the last game I played. The effect was as described: the Allies have more countries and also more production points available, hence they generally spend more and unless their dice are miserable they get a bundle of intel points every turn (especially after US DoW). This does make them stronger.

I don't disagree with this. It has been my experience that the Axis still has a significant advantage even with many of the optional rules that favor the Allies in play. I have seen Axis global conquest once (in a 3rd edition game) but in our most recent WiFFE game the Axis was clearly going to have lots more objectives than they bid (a bundle) even though there was no possibility of them crossing the Atlantic.

I wonder what the outcome of the WIFCON games has been? What is the average bid for an Axis power compared to the historical outcome for the Axis in recorded games? Does anybody know?

[Matt242]

I attended to Euro-WiFCon 5 of 9 times.
Overall games results seem relatively balanced with a certain overall advantage for the Allies. There are better years for the Axis as well as better ones for the Allies.

Since 1997 many rules have changed. Seeing it from today i think that many changes in favor of the Allies were necessary to create a more historical balance. However, if you take a look in the Millenium Annual there seems to be a main difference between players in Euope and overseas:
In Europe Allied players tend to win more games, in the US the reverse is true. But this is only a rough tendency i believe.

Imho one main factor is experience and ambition which often go hand in hand. This often decides which side will win. Optionals have an impact, yes, but during agreement process often a balance is being achieved.

Since many games aren't played to the bitter end, Allied peformance seem a little underrated to me. At a Con you have just a week to get as far as possible. Unless the USSR/CW have crumbled before, 1943 and 1944 are the decisive years for Allied offensives on all fronts. Most tables can't get further, some even do not see 1944...
Have you ever seen the Axis eat five or more offensive chits in a single turn? In 1944 it often happens. Outproducing the Axis several times the Allies can afford so many of them at this stage of the game and this does dramatically change game situation in an instant. Especially if happening several times in succession.

The hope for the Axis is tremendeous succees in the first third/half of the game. If they did not achieve a decisive goal by then, they have to consolidate their lines and fight for bare survival for the rest of the game. Needless to say they do hardly have a chance. That's the way the game is meant to be. If games were played to the end more often, the Allies would win most of them i think.

That is absolutely ok. Close to historical references. Both sides CAN win. This is crucial to a game.

To return to topic: Intelligence is rarely played at Euro-WiFCon. As far as i know: who plays it once there, won't do it again as it is with LiF/CiF/CONViF. Too much hassling for too little effect. If the Allies can afford to gather hundreds of Intelligence points, the game is already decided. What to do with them then? Dead is dead.
Offensive chits achieve more impact on the course of the game, are cheaper and need not be rolled for.

[wfzimmerman]

I put forward a radical suggestion in the beta testers forum: why not use intelligence points to implement the fog of war option in MWIF?

The more intelligence points you spend, the clearer your picture of the enemy's operational dispositions.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

That is an intriguing idea.

I suspect, at least at first, many people will be playing without the fog of war. I know I will during the time when I am reacquainting myself with the game.

This might be an interesting possibility for later, though.

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

That is an intriguing idea.

I suspect, at least at first, many people will be playing without the fog of war. I know I will during the time when I am reacquainting myself with the game.

This might be an interesting possibility for later, though.

Fog of war is in my opinion both realistic and fun. This may be especially the case when playing against the AI.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

I agree that fog of war is intriguing. I also agree that using some sort of intelligence spending will be a wonderful addition to the game.

As with everything, though, balance will be the key.

[Matt242]

Basically an interesting idea.

At the moment i still have problems to imagine how this would function technically.
Another point is planning: A cosim is decisionmaking. Decisionmaking would be very difficult if you don't know what is going on.

two examples:
a) early 1940. fall gelb is about to be unleashed. how could germany decide where to attack? It does matter a lot where the enemy is - his hqs, his planes, reserves etc.
where to strike first and hardest? -> where to strike at all?
how would the CW decide which city/-ies) to bomb? where are enemy fighters? which front hex to disrupt? when is it time to run for another dunkirk?

b) game starts and goes along. how would either side decide whether a sealion is possible? where are the enemy units stationed? what are the builds like? what is the opponent up to?
it would be a strange surprise for the CW if he fought desperately for France, losing several units in his effort to delay the germans.
Then, from nowhere a german CV and another TRS along with a MAR show up and no one knew about their existence at all.
it would also be a strange experience to plan for a sealion just to be expected by 2 hqs, 2 ARM, 2 MEC and a handful of FTR etc.

Must also be funny to play the USSR and prepare for a Barbarossa that will never come. Due to your neutrality you don't have enough intelligence to know that the german spearheads are approaching Gibraltar or London...

surprise, surprise, happy birthday [8|]

The flight of a single reconnaissance plane may have been enough. Listening to the radio helps also.

you can imagine millions of examples where fog of war would ruin any strategy in a cosim. In a regular wargame being played in two or three hours this is ok. But WiF requires so much time.

To be honest: i would be really disgusted to lose a game i spent 60 hours on just because i could not see the opponent. a maximum in intelligence (for uncovering the map) would then be a "must have" - for every side. so why not leave it out...

Basically it's a question what game computer-wif shall be. As a cosim it should not have fog of war.
If it is intended to be warcraft (which is a great game) with numbered counters - ok. but then harry won't be happy with giving the license. and i would not play it.

therefore i would prefer intelligence to be included as an optional as it is in RAW.