Matrix Games Forums

What you are claiming in paragraph 2 is not my understanding. Can you please explain.

If the highest level for each side are the same, isn't it a wash. E.g. If Germany is at a 1, the UK, USSR and USA all at 1 how are the allies gaining any addidtional bebefit (for any/all turns that where the levels are the same)? In this scenario all the powers research benefit gets washed out; and there is no increased breakthrough chance either as Hubert just explained.

Very Interesting

I'm not saying I doubt him, just that I fail to comprehend and would like it demonstrated mathematically.

That`s my understanding of how Int. works, I could be wrong of course.

Int. is providing a bonus of + 1%/lvl of Int.; an increased chance for a breakthrough (1%/lvl); and a decrease of opponents research by 1%, if at least one of your own majors research lvl of Int. is higher than the highest Int.-lvl of your opponents majors; if both highest lvls are the same, they`re still benefitting from their own lvl. of Int. as wel as the chance of a breakthrough.

The progress of research is 2-7% (5% on average) without any lvl of Int. as well as a chance for breakthrough, being 5% once the threshold of 45% has been passed; you can add +1% per every lvl of Int. to both, unless your opponents highest lvl of Int. is higher than your highest.

Catch up boni as well as sharing of research are calculated before the comparison of the lvls of Int.; since doublechitting is providing double the progress and the chance of a breakthrough, it's recommended whereever possible.

Quote Hubert Cater: "When the checks are made, it is relative to your own per country level versus the highest level of your enemy. So if the Intelligence level of Italy is lower than any* of your enemy levels, then the Intelligence level of Italy is negated when applying the research bonus. But if Germany has a higher Intelligence level than any* of the enemy, then they would receive the applicable research bonus."

* In my understanding this means each, not some.

Conclusion: the most serious threat occurs by an opponents lvl of Int. being higher than yours; if you don`t research Int. at all, this threat is becoming reality, when your opponent is reaching the first lvl of Int.; thereby slowing down your research by 1%/lvl of Int. as well as denying the chance of a beakthrough (afaik, or reducing it by 1% at min.) and increasing his progression by 1%/lvl of Int..

By researching Int. with every own major (realistically GB, US, and SU or Germany and Italy), you`re diminishing this threat without any downside (except the costs of selling some less valuable chits); the boni of any lvl of Int. occur at latest by reaching your opponents highest lvl of Int.

Even if your opponent is achieving the first lvl of Int. at first, your chance to catch up is trippled by investing with each major, thereby diminishing the period of your mali.

The more I look at it the less sense Hubert's quote makes in regards to the parts you emphasized. How does Germany get a benefit if she has the same level as the UK but a better level than the USSR? The rule and Hubert also say your level is compared to the highest level on the other side and if greater you get a benefit.

Or does the comparison vs other enemy powers research level apply when your level is equal to the highest on the other side?

I would still like some specific examples of how this works when the highest level on each side is equal, but not all powers are at the same level.

I agree the explanations seem not be as clear and as complete as I´d wish they would be; furthermore they're hardly comprehended in game. It would be a huge effort to comprehend by launching a hot-seat-game, watch the progression under all possible circumstances for each different sector; and to draw a conclusion.

I`m considering the question under the terms of priorities: how can I prevent the other side from running ahead and increase my own progression most effective? I also assume this issue to be one of the most important aspects in PbEMs; therefore I also probably would spend MPPs in case they're only providing an increased chance of a breakthrough.

What I did observe in previous versions of the game - when there still existed the possibility to doublechit Int. - was the Axis to be way ahead, peaking in mid. 42, especially against the AI or unexperienced opponents neglecting research of Int.. Since this means nearly doubling the impact of Int., it`s able to give a hint in this matter.

hmmm... I read all that but it brings me to one simple thought:

if you only get a bonus if your spy level is HIGHER than ANY (not all) of the opponents fractions that would mean that only one country (Germany OR Italy / GB, USSR, USA) has to research spy/intel.

So if GB is on 3 Germany will never be able to run ahead and vice versa.

Correct?

If my interpretation (which is what I've been questioning in this discussion) is correct, then for defensive purposes (i.e. preventing the other side from getting a bonus) then yes. If Germany is at 3, Italy 0, and the UK 2, then Italy will not get a research bonus while Germany will get one; and none of the Allies will.

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

If my interpretation (which is what I've been questioning in this discussion) is correct, then for defensive purposes (i.e. preventing the other side from getting a bonus) then yes. If Germany is at 3, Italy 0, and the UK 2, then Italy will not get a research bonus while Germany will get one; and none of the Allies will.

In this scenario then it only makes sense for one major to do the investment. Once UK reaches 3 then no one on either side gets the benefit.

Has this been confirmed?

According to Bill's and Hubert's posts, this is actually the case. Nevertheless it's worth to research Intel. with every major country, since it's increasing the chance for a breakthrough in Intel., and you want to be the first developping Intel. 3 under all circumstances; the probability is of course the higher, the more countries participate.

Once Intel. 3 is reached, you may sell those now redundant chits.