Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

Communications mimic has to go too. A potential 20% loss of mutual trade between 2 empires that will take 20 turns to rebuild, plus any co-located ships, unit & planets suddenly all attack each other and blocade planets. All this for a single intell attack? Makes PPP and mutiny seem like baby stuff.

Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Glad that I could inspire you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif My post was intended to make some suggestions and inspirings before Aaron is finalizing his game concepts for SEV.

"Individual Leaders" If you mean leaders like in MOO2, then I am also against this. (I did never like them really) I am just for a modified spy system with actual spies and not only abstract intel points. Of course the term "actual spies" could also be a spy ring of hundreds of individuals (if you dont like a single person)

Sabotage and Intel dividing. Maybe, but I think its difficult. In our days with human ethic values an intel spy is not so bad like a saboteur, but who knows what Aliens think about this evaluation. Maybe the Cue Cappa like Saboteurs more and hate all those intelligence gathering spies which sit only on their arses and the whole day read cue cappain newspapers? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
IMO the complex of secret service should rather taken as one - for simplicity - and should not be divided, but if there are game concept reasons why it should be divided, I am for it.

PPP - yes this is crap. It should be replaced by better named and designed missions.

spy ships - good idea. A game system where I can assign certain special secret missions to spies and where it is necessary to lift them with special ships to enemy territory physically. I think its important that not all missions need physically lifting the spy to the enemy, because one can assume that certain missions require only the normal way with all those many tiny litte offmap freighters the game has already now. A further possiblity would be that hidden (in clouds and asteroids) spy ships are able to collect data about enemy planets and ships. I hope Aaron reads this thread.

bye
KlausD

Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

Dogscoff,

Assuming that someone 'trusts you' because they have a treaty with you is a bit naive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Let's just let the target's counter-intel level determine the chance of success.

Other than the modifiers I have recommended before, of the race on the planet, and their current anger level, having an effect.

It would be nice if the planetary 'covert recon' report would tell you the race of the inhabitants and the 'mood' (anger level) on the planet as well as the cargo and facilities.

I would also support the idea of being able to plant 'moles' in other empires. You could spend points on the 'mole' project and if it is successful you'd have those points stored for possible use in a future intel project in that empire.

Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

Very good observation. I too think it is unnecessary to add complications of treaties to the calculation factor. Heck, even in one of my games I had a treaty with the Jreanor (lizard guys), but I didn't trust them any more than a true enemy. Heck, a true enemy would at least be more honest in their intentions, so my distrust of them probably goes futher than that.

Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

Many good ideas here. Might as well throw my 0.02 into the bucket.

I would like to see the mechanics underlying the game strengthened, so that certain types of intel work indirectly, for example:

If we had a system where ships track not only experience but loyalty and morale, then you might find that sometimes ships switch sides on their own under certain conditions. Then, rather than have an intel project which magically switches the ship's allegiance, you'd just have a project which attacks the ship's loyalty rating, or its morale in the hopes that you'd tip the balance in your favour

Similarly, planets should have a more realistic model for rebellion based on loyalty and morale, (with loyalty to each of the in-game empires tracked), with rebellions carrying a chance of joining another empire rather than becoming independent. Then rather than a PPP project which either switches control or doesn't, you'd attack that planet's morale, incite rioting and let the game's mechanics take care of the rest.

Throw in extra complications like troops that can fight a rebelling population and you'd have an beautifully organic and realistically unpredictable system.

A few more things: I've suggested this before as being related to population management and population movement (see my various rants about having populations move autonomously), but it's relevant to intel. I'd like to be able to set the freedom level I allow my citizens. you'd be able to choose between a variety of settings (maybe a percentage scale) between the following 2 extremes :

*Completely libertarian: foreign trade and research sharing flourish. Citizens are happy, but enemy intel/ sabotage is hard to spot. Plagues spread rapidly, populations move about freely within and across national borders. Popular uprisings are harder to control.

*Totalitarian control: Foreign trade and research sharing are lowered somewhat. Populaions cannot move so freely, so plagues are easily contained. Citizens are less happy, but their uprisings are easier to suppress due to totalitarian infrastructure. Infiltration by enemy intel is very difficult.

You'd be able to move your status on this scale during the game, but anything but the most gradual changes would cause popular unrest. Suddenly switching from one extreme to the oother would cause massive rioting.

Finally, intel against friendly empires should be easier than against enemies- after all it's easier to steal from/ sabotage someone who trusts you.

[ March 20, 2003, 12:08: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

...and while were wishing here, I think a few Intel components would be kinda' neat idea. For instance, place a 'propaganda bomb' component on a drone, send it to a system, and increase the chances of PPP or Crew Ins in a system. Probably impossible 'cause of current Intel model, but I can wish can't I....

Can't you see billions of pamphlets floating down from orbit.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK, so you're at war with the Xi-chung but you're at peace with the Phong. You're walking down the street on your homeworld and you see a giant bug in a trenchcoat hanging around outside the Census office. You call the police and they cart him away. You probably wouldn't even notice the friendly yellow guy with the bulgy eyes stood next to him...

My point is that in an inter-species war like this, an enemy agent would stick out like a sore thumb. Sure, you could still pay locals to do your dirty work or use disguises or remote technology or something, but a "friendly" spy would be able to move about and ask questions without attracting too much attention.

[ March 21, 2003, 12:06: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Thoughts on future of Intel
 

I like the idea of individual spys that have been discussed here. Amost sounds like adding a level of role play.

If it were to get implemented I would want it as an option as it does look like more micro managment to me.