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]

Summary of results to date

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

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.