The eternal lack: Spying & intel

[Trifna]

About any game including spying does it in some unsubstantial or even simplistic way. A bit like if we were playing Starcraft and we'd just click "send troops to attack". It would kill immersion, strategy and fun.

There is something about spying just as substantial/rational and on the field as wonders bring to a civilization, or scientists with libraries/schools, or armies moving through plains, or social system actually formed of concrete aspects (like social engeneering ).

Am I the only one to think that spying is about something substantial and fun/strategic/immersive?


What I'd like to see is an actual intelligence, not something detached as an add-on to the rest ("create spy - send spy - receive result"). They should somewhat be as the rest of the game with its true strategic coherence:
1- Send spies
2- Let them "gain territory" and control it over counter-intelligence (networking...)
3- Let them use their territory to the extent possible (missions and intel)

As simple as 1-2-3. So much strategy, fun and immersion from this, just as religion or culture is planned in Civ4. Am I the only one feeling like that about spying in games?

[korn469]

i agree with this, i think spys should be able to build covert buildings in opponent's cities

like for example

safe house: spy healing
embassy: basic espianage functions do not result in damage to spys
resistance movement: improves chances of disrupting production
fifth column: allows easy flips

then you have counterintelligence buildings that could counteract these structures, but yeah covert ops certainly has room for improvement

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

The thing with me is that I can only go on personal experience. In civ2, I hated having to use actual units to conduct missions of Sabotage and Espionage. By the same token, though, I found the Civ3 system to be VERY UNFUN to work with. For my money, though, Birth of the Federation was the game which got the Intelligence Operations balance about right.
You didn't move units around, but you did generate 'Intelligence Points' which you could allocate (on a % basis) to the various powers-and in various areas of specialisation (espionage/sabotage, and domestic, economic, scientific, military). You could also hold back the points for 'Internal Security', to defend yourself against the operations of other nations.
Once this was done, the whole intelligence operation system tended to 'run itself', updating you with intelligence on other powers, and informing you when a sabotage mission succeeded or failed and, occasionally, you would also be asked if you wanted to implicate a 3rd party in your crimes!! For me, this whole system was incredibly fun because it lacked MM, whilst still leaving me with a sense of immersion, as I moved my intelligence assets from one power to the next-depending on my loyalties, and decided whether I wanted to pursue a secretive, underhanded approach to foreign relations, or a more direct up-front diplomatic approach! It was really COOL!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Trifna]

What I say could be just as valid with units, but I personally prefer no units at all: intelligence operations are not an army of 200 guys with ties passing a frontier to attack, if it doesn't get killed. It's diffuse.

As for getting it run independently or by the player, well I think that it could work with this 1-2-3 thing in both cases anyway. I would guess that there is a good immersion and potential strategy when the player can give the general orientations.