Espionage & Assymetrical Warfare

[Shogun Gunner]

I checked the category sign up list and I didn't see anything about Espionage? Does everything think it's done okay in Civ3? I, for one, miss the spy unit from Civ2

Don't get me wrong... I know there was a lot of problems with that unit. Quite frankly, it was way too powerful in the human player's hands. The AI did use it to flip a city, but the human used it more effectively by hiding it under caravans, using the spy unit to circumvent zone of control and most of my armies didn't lead with the tanks, but led with the spy!

Okay, that was what was wrong with the unit (well, maybe not the hiding in the caravan trick...I kinda liked that one)....but the aspect that I miss from the spy unit was that is was an actual unit!

I liked the ability to locate my spy resources across my empire where I wanted to concentrate my spy activities. In Civ3, this has been totally abstracted -- and i'm not totally convinced that it couldn't be improved. I want to see spy on spy action!

In a similiar vein, since we don't have a spy unit, the privateer is the only assymetrical warfare unit you can field. In Civ2, your spy unit always had the option to paying double gold to flip a city and you wouldn't even have to go to war! Well, yes, that was too powerful, but it was assymetrical warfare....I want more of that in Civ4 - more assymetrical warfare options. The return of the spy unit would help that.

Remember the partisan? Well, he was really just another infantry unit in Civ2. In Civ4, it would be nice to build guerilla units with the express purpose of crossing the border and creating mayhem! Think Pakistan versus India here. Perhaps the only net effect of this military unit would be reducing the amount of production on city tiles the guerilla/partisan unit resided in...but you don't have to declare war to do this to your enemy. There are many times I nursed a grudge against the AI and wished I could take some kind of action against him -- especially during peace time.

Does anyone else think spy and assymetrical warfare should be in Civ4? As I'm typing all this, I'm afraid that I just signed up for another List Category .....please tell me if this belongs in another list.

[Kuciwalker]

see my post in the 2000-3000 thread

[statusperfect]

I think the Galciv spy model is the best I've seen so far. FOr each civ you have two sliders. One for info gathering and one for destabilization.

[Skanky Burns]

Flagless units would be fun to make and use, and of course to destroy when enemies used them against you. As long as they are weaker than your standard units due to lack of country support.

[Fosse]

I'm not opposed to spy units and other unconventionals so long as "special" units don't go overboard, like CtP did. Spies and covert ops could be good.

I think I like statusperfect's approach even more than my vote though (option 1)

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Fosse
I'm not opposed to spy units and other unconventionals so long as "special" units don't go overboard, like CtP did. Spies and covert ops could be good.

Well, the thought was since civ-style games should encompass all unit aspects of society, not only military, the unconventionals in CTP were a means to present those aspects.

Personally, I liked the unconventionals, but not to the point that they need to be in the game. I would retain the idea of using a spy as an actual unit instead of global sliders, or as a very generalized menu selection feature as it is now. (There is something satisfying about having to march a spy to a target and then using it.)

However, I would like the areas of society fleshed out a little more than they currently are in civ3. Take religion for example. Its probably the most powereful underlining element in pre-modern societies, yet the only way it is portrayed is with happiness enhancer buildings. CTP used units to flesh this out a little more.

In the same vein, slavers are a little more realistic in CTP. I know that you can capture workers in civ3, but historically, slaves were often defeated warriors, and CTP allows this to occur. Still, as long as the concept of slaving was in civ4 in some format, it would not need to require a special unit.

But keep embassy establishment as it is in civ3, rather than needing to build a unit and march it to a civ's city to establish an embassy as it is in CTP.

[Roman]

I want asymetric warfare, espionage, etc. to be in the game, but I am not particularly concerned whether it is done through an options menu, sliders, or units.

[Optimizer]

There should be a better model for guerrilla warfare and civilian resistance. You should be able to open a menu in any city where there are citizens of your nationality, to launch strikes (causing civil disorder), acts of sabotage (destroys improvements/units) and guerrilla uprisings (creates guerrilla units). This would cost money - or the lives of your fellow countrymen.

The current resistance model is too abstract, and too random.

[Kuciwalker]

I disagree with a spy unit, or any CtP(2)-esque "special unit", because they make no sense as a unit and are really stupid. Espionage is and should be abstracted. Hopefully, other forms of assymetric warfare can be accomplished simply through the use of terrain and mobility.

[Fosse]

The problem I had with CtP assymetrical units, and to a lesser extent with Civ2 spies, was the overwhelming and unbalancing power that they had.

This meant that you had to have them, and if you wanted to see the enemies you had to have them everywhere. Micromangment and not fun.

I wouldn't mind at all seeing more unconventional options done through an advisor type interface, and in fact the more I think about it the more I want it that way.

[Shogun Gunner]

So far this poll is evenly split down the middle. Some people like the spy unit, some people hate it...but a vast majority want to see some kind of assymetrical warfare options. Very interesting.

I hope to see the spy unit again, but I would be satisfied with a more robust set of options for guerilla and assymetrical warfare...there have been some great suggestions on this thread. Thanks for your responses.

------------------------------
statusperfect: sliders for gathering information and destabilization.

fosse: not opposed to special units if its implemented conservatively. Too much use of these units unbalances gameplay. Open to abstraction of options via advisor interface.

hexagonian: likes the special units, and doesn't like the slider approach -- to abstract

roman: wants assymetrical warfare and doesn't care if its with units or abstracted with sliders

Optimizer: wants assymetrical warfare (guerrilla and civilian resistance), but not abstracted. Wants tactical control/choices in cities with your nationality.

skywalker: against the spy unit - wants espionage and assymetrical warfare abstracted
------------------------------

Preliminary Conclusion:
Civ Players want additional options when competing against the enemy. Instead of stark choices of "WAR" or "PEACE", an expansion of conflict options covering spying, guerilla warfare, civil disorder and other special units indicate an agreement to wanting more features in this part of Civ. Thank you for your contributions.

[Fosse]

Shogun, that post is awesome!

[Kuciwalker]

skywalker: against the spy unit - wants espionage and assymetrical warfare abstracted

Mostly right, but I mentioned that assymetrical warfare itself doesn't need to be totally abstracted - just "spy" units should be. Assymetrical warfare should be easy to create with terrain and mobility of units.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

skywalker: against the spy unit - wants espionage and assymetrical warfare abstracted

Mostly right, but I mentioned that assymetrical warfare itself doesn't need to be totally abstracted - just "spy" units should be. Assymetrical warfare should be easy to create with terrain and mobility of units.

Actually, I'm glad you posted. Do mind giving more detail about "Assymetrical warfare should be easy to create with terrain and mobility of units."? I'm not sure if I understand...which might explain why I didn't get it right in the summary.

[Kuciwalker]

Here's an example, though it doesn't focus directly on assymetrical warfare:

You know what, more than that, I want mobility to become a decisive factor in almost ALL conflicts. This is getting off-topic, but I'm going to detail how I think warfare should work, era by era:

In the Ancient Era, combat should be divided into two categories - raiding and conquest. Slow-moving yet powerful units (Swordsmen) should dominate conquest. OTOH, Horsemen - the Ancient Age mobile unit - should dominate in raiding. You should be able to "raid" a city with mobile units - you can carry off a pop point as a worker and grab some gold. Maybe you should even be able to take some gold if you retreat when attacking a city (or if you destroy a unit defending the city). In addition, Horsemen should be far superior to Swordsmen when attacking an unentrenched army in the field, rather than attacking a city. Rather than achieving immediate, decisive victory, they harrass an incoming force, whittling away at it.

In the Medieval Era, Knights should not be considered mobile units (some UU's, however, like the Keshik, should). They are the Swordsmen of the Middle Ages. However, I think they should be very expensive, forcing you to use cheaper Longbowmen and Medieval Infantry for support if you want to amass a useful attack force. The extra movement of Knights wouldn't be too much of a bonus to them. Cavalry, however, should reintroduce mobility as a factor in warfare. More than that, though, they should be able to use their mobility in order to achieve immediate, decisive victory and do so at a place of their own choosing. Cavalry combine the ability to conquer with the ability to raid (though they probably shouldn't be able to do that in the literal sense): they are the primary attack force now, and using their mobility in order to concentrate force effectively is what determines whether you win or lose. Until Riflemen.

In the Industrial Era, you are suddenly presented with a single-move unit that, entrenched (fortified), kills Cavalry in droves. Moreover, it is far cheaper than Cavalry and has a slightly better attack (attack should equal defense for the Rifleman). However, Cavalry's mobility still has one use - if you can get behind their giant Rifleman stack, you can wreak havoc on their infrastructure. This forces you to spread out your forces, creating a long line of Riflemen along the front. The object of warfare is now to achieve a breakthrough - extremely difficult, but if done, victory is near. (Incidentally, a system where you can "entrench" a unit in a certain direction, giving it a good defense bonus in that direction and the two adjacent directions but giving a huge defense penalty in the opposite three, with no defense bonus at all in two, would support this model well.) You can (given the entrenching model) now crush many of their forces from behind, and you let loose your Cavalry. The strategy is similar with Infantry.

Then come Tanks. Tanks have a huge attack, enough that they achieve breakthroughs easily when used in a group, and when massed speed up the tempo of warfare beyond belief. Not setting up defenses against a Tank blitz will probably be the last mistake you ever make. However, once a blitz has been turned (or forstalled altogether), Tank combat closely resembles that of the combat at the end of the Medieval Era with Cavalry - massed forces maneuvering in order to achieve decisive victory. This strategy works even better with Modern Armor.

Finally, comes the end of the Modern Age. Air power is now one of the most powerful components of war, and massed air and armor attacks are the rule. The tempo of war is faster than blitzing, even. Mechanized Infantry provide some defense, but mobility is still the key, especially in open, flat terrain. However, increasing combat is being taken to rugged terrain where Modern Armor's mobility advantage is diminished or neutralized altogether. New units, capable of moving with ease through this terrain, retreating from combat and fading away in order to appear somewhere else (figuratively ), make Modern Armor attacks into such terrain disasters. These new units become the Horsemen of the Modern Era (though only in difficult terrain). Variations on these units follow a more Swordsman-style strategy, though they still retain mobility as their primary strength.

The two primary strategies - harrasment versus what I was calling decisive force, are examples of assymetric warfare. A column of Swordsmen should be vulnerable to harrassment by Horsemen, but the Horsement have to take special care that the Swordsmen can't bring their force (or the bulk of it) to bear on the harrassing force.

[Shogun Gunner]

Okay...I remember reading this in the other thread.

If I can paraphrase, you are open to units that would facilitate assymetrical warfare. You just don't like the spy unit.

You, however, like the guerilla or a "civil disorder unit" perhaps even special forces type units.

[Kuciwalker]

Right, especially later in the Modern Age. I don't want these units to have "special abilities" (though possibly their presence and/or success could increase the chance of culture flip) but to be pillagers and units that don't face the enemy in open combat. Rather, they ignore the move cost of difficult terrain and can retreat from anything, meaning they are very good at slowly whittling away at a normal attack force that is used to using numbers and/or technology to simply overwhelm the enemy.

[Peter Triggs]

CTP2 had a whole bunch of stealth units (from slavers to cyber ninjas). Hardly anybody liked them but, IMO, they played a useful role in the game: they could be used to provoke you or give you an excuse to attack your neighbour. If your neighbour dislikes you, he will start a coldwar with you using stealth units. As you expel his lawyers etc., his regard falls until he really hates you and starts a hotwar with you. Alternately, you might just get pissed off and start a hotwar with him.

In this way stealth units were somewhat analogous to Civ3's strategic resources: as I understand it, if you need some resource and your neighbour won't trade it to you, you needn't feel all that bad when you attack him. (Contrast this with Civ2 where you often found yourself playing as a naked megalomaniac.)

So, the question is: is there any place for this type of unit in Civ4? I don't mean the specific units that were in CTP2, but rather some sort of unit that you and the AI could use provocatively but without being in a state of war. A 'terrorist' comes immediately to mind but this might be too sensitive (and too provocative).

[Stefu]

I like Optimizer's idea of being able to cause strikes and others in areas with your citizens. However, there should be a special unit for this, call it a Subverter or something, which can establish a revolutionary cell in a city. This revolutionary cell can then be used for strikes, sabotage and revolutions. How much establishing a cell would cost would depend on how many people of your nationality are in a city and how pissed off they are.

If religions are included, then revolutionary cells could also be established in cities which share your state religion. A communist state would have an added benefit of being able to establish revolutionary cells in any city. And there would be some means for a player to root out these revolutionary cells.

Hey, more that I think of this idea, more I like it. Yeah! It would certainly change the gameplay in a good way, especially for communist states, who'd have a whole new tactic - if the evil capitalists thwart the military ambitions of the rodina, subvert them from the inside!

A more traditional "spy" unit should be included for stealing technology, spying, and such operations.

No special units beyond that, though. I agree that CtP went way overboard.

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, CTP went too far....I will once again point to the lawyer as a unit I absolutely hated.

I also really think that Optimizer has a good idea here....

So once again, I'll ask. This is not a {List -- xxxx} type thread. Do we need to start one, or does this really fall in another existing thread (government, combat???)

I love subverting from the inside

[Stefu]

I'm not really happy with the name Subverter, now that I think of it. Is there a better name? "Agitator" and "Revolutionary Agent" are possibilities, but I'm sure there's a term that describes *exactly* what I'm thinking of, but I can't remember it...

The espionage screen should have information about all the cities you have revolutionary cells in, and some kind of easy way to cause mass havoc. ("All members of the French Liberation Front in German cities go on strike NOW!") This would, of course, cost a lot of money and if the Germans find out they'd be pissed off, but it would be a nifty way to stop the German spaceship project on it's tracks or just cripple the empire. (The way I'm envisioning it, going on a strike would not only mean that all the projects in the city stop, but also that the resources in the city's zone of control become temporarily unavailable. Nihihihihi...)

[Shogun Gunner]

Is it something like "insurgent"?

I would love to see both the highly trained and specialized commando unit (Green Beret, Navy SEALS, Delta Force, etc) and the untrained (Partisan, Guerilla, Insurgent, Freedom Fighter) in the game. However, not too many units, or too powerful. These should a role, capability and the effect should be on the proper scale.

These units have traditionally taken very difficult and dangerous assignments where it was necessary to remain undetected (hence precluding large unit operations). If these units were available they could destroy roads/railroads; perhaps negate fortification enhancements for one turn; freeze a military unit from moving for one turn; ground an air unit for one turn...I'm sure we could think of a bunch of other ideas here.

One of the main missions of the Green Berets is to work behind enemy lines, build relationships with indigenous people, train and arm the populace into small units. This could fit in with Stefu's revolutionary cell concept.

[POTUS]

Spies per se are not good, and should not be used, but I like the idea of representing their abilities.

[Shogun Gunner]

bump...hoping Stefu remembered what he wanted to call that unit...

[Kuciwalker]

I think that the only units that exist on the map should be combat units, settlers, workers, and transports (which pretty much fall under combat units). Anything else should be abstracted.

[TheBirdMan]

I using all kind of spies units and other assymetrical warfare units. And I would of couse embrase any possibility to use agitators and stuff like that.

Making a sleeping cell in some of your neighbours cities, that goes active - causes unhappiness, falling production.... what ever - when a command is given is just.....

Such cells should be really sleeping, meaning that your opponent should NOT get informed of anything by default. There might be a chance say 2-3% every turn for discovery and following "bad standing" by the offended.

[Stefu]

Not a 2-3% chance every turn, that's too high. What I'm envisioning is that, basically, the Revolutionary Agent (my current preferred term for this unit) can establish a small cell, which can only conduct some basic sabotage and city investigation. Through use of money (or possibly through natural growth which depends on the size and unhappiness of the possibly revolutionary community) it can grow into a medium cell, which organized strikes and such, and a large cell, which can do revolutions and other such operations. The chance of the cell being found depends on it's size, and there would be means for the other player to find out about it (one of spy's operations could be infiltrating these revolutionary cells, there could be a 'martial law' option which makes busting the cells easier, etc.)

[LDiCesare]

The original MOO (1) espionage options was quite good: Spend money to get 1 or more spies in a given civs, and give them missions (hiding, sabotage, steal techs...). A very slider-based approach, but with individual spies.

I'd like the option to attack another country without being at war: Using mercenaries, raiding parties... This would be a state of armed peace, where you can still trade with the other country, but do some damage to them. A weaker country would probably allow for some raiding in exchange of some trade rather than an all-out war of conquest. This would require raiding to give benefits to the raider, like money for instance.

[DarkCloud]

I'm pro-spy unit

---
Possible Actions

Bribe Unit
Bribe Town
Assassinate General (as per Shogun: Total War) this could cause a morale lowering in the army... or if morale isn't represented, then it could cause the attack and defense to lower.
Assassinate Ruler (as per Shogun: Total War) this could cause the nation's tax revenues to decline because of chaos and corruption to increase until a heir assumes the throne.
Poison Water Supply Reduce city population
Plant Nuclear Agent Nuke the city. Possible warcrime.
Plant Chemical Agent Chem the city. Possible Warcrime. (less effective than nukes but costs less)
Plant BioAgent Bio the city. Possible warcrime. (Less effective than chemical and more likley to get caught. Costs less)
Steal Technology
Establish Embassy
Spy on City
Destroy Buildings
Sabotague Production
Incite Riot
Incite Change of Government
Decrease Productivity
Steal from Treasury
Destroy Railroad
Mine Road (Place mines on roads, railroads- that explode and damage units that run into them)
Call Airstrike (Bomber's damage is improved when someone on the ground can direct their fire)

-
Anyone have any other ideas?

-
LDiCaesar- I love your idea about mercenaries and pirates!

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Assassinate General (as per Shogun: Total War) this could cause a morale lowering in the army... or if morale isn't represented, then it could cause the attack and defense to lower.
Assassinate Ruler (as per Shogun: Total War) this could cause the nation's tax revenues to decline because of chaos and corruption to increase until a heir assumes the throne.

DarkCloud,

Great list. I had a double take when reading your post.... I thought to myself, "Wow, I'm pretty smart..." Then I realized it was from a game called "Shogun"

Maybe renaming the "Spy" unit would help. Or better yet, a set of different units. Some of these actions are "007-like" but others are special operations. I think a specific unit (or units) makes sense because these small unit actions have significant impact on the battlefield. They should be included.

Spy - traditional James Bond stuff
Green Beret - infilitration attacks (assassinations, directing bomber runs, etc from DarkCloud's list)
Delta Force - anti terrorism (attacks the Revolutionary Agent)
Revolutionary Agent (Stefu's idea) for terrorism cells

Just a preliminary list of units connected to actions they could carry out. I could see some overlap as a spy and green beret unit could assisinate, but perhaps one is better than the other depending on function.

One issue is making these units hidden/visible under the right circumstances. The game structure would have to change to allow stacking of these type of units in enemy military stacks or enemy cities. Not impossible, just a change that's needed. This would definitely contribute to "the fog of war" which helps authenticity IMHO.

Good thread going here....