Hi,

study than can be found here :
https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol50no2/html_files/Intelligence_War_2.htm

"History repeatedly has demonstrated that numerically inferior forces,
armed with less capable technologies, can win when leaders are armed
with accurate intelligence they believe they can act upon. Such
intelligence can be a force multiplier. Therefore, considering the
value of force employment, technology, and mass without placing a
corresponding value on intelligence is a mistake."

Point is, not only in strategic wargames, but also in operational games
the way intell is depicted leaves much to be desired IMHO. The map
directly behind the frontlines is almost always very, very empty while
in reality it would be crawling with units on situation assesment maps
in HQ's.

What would an operational commander have in the way of battlefield
intell in WWII? Sigint from his radio listening posts, humint from
defectors and partisans/resistance/commando units behind the lines,
photorecce from aircraft and maybe a few more of these.
But how are these assets implemented in most wargames? I guess only air
recce is available in most games.
If I remember well, Flashpoint Germany (albeit a modern wargame) has
Sigint on the HQ's using their radio's.

BasKa wrote:

Well, something like this is implemented in COTA - the scenario creator
can create real or fake intel reports on units which may or may not be
at that map location far away from LOS at scenario start. Check the
Malta scenarios for examples of this.

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:

[intelligence and the lack of 20/20 hindsight in strategic wargames]

I think HOI2 -- while not exactly a hardcore wargame -- handles this nicely.
Due to the possibility of scripting events there's a couple of mods
available that change the course of history by popping up some interesting
events, some of them triggered to certain conditions. While this in itself
leads to a limited replay value, the diplomactic aspects ensure that no two
games are really alike. It's for instance possible to play as Germany
without going to war with Russia at all, if you handle things right (and
Stalin plays along, which he does not always do ;-)) Finally, I enjoy the
fact that you can direct research, which is IMHO pretty important for
strategic wargames with a scope of nearly a decade. It's great fun to play
through a couple of "what-if" scenarios once in a while... ;-)

Cheers,
Chris

Christoph Stark wrote:

In article <1153299142.471177.164050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

If my experience serves, generally via a host of "special rules" that
themselves amount to a rich, gamey layer of pure bullshit.

But there are really two levels to consider this on; the level of the
game scenario itself, and the meta-level or the context within which the
scenario operates.

The right way to handle "intelligence" on the level of the game scenario
itself is to build FOW routines and orders/intelligence gathering delays
which ensure that the "picture" of the battlefield the game system
presents to the player features the intelligence uncertainties and
downright nonsense a real commander might face. This ensures the human
player has the same opportunity to misread the intelligence his real-
world counterpart has.

This problem with operational and strategic games geared at a certain
campaign is that you ALLWAYS know what has happenend historically. Be
it the Bulge, be it Arnhem, be it Stalingrad (what competent PC general
would leave the Italians and Romenians to guard his flanks at a
computer Stalingrad battle?).

In article <1153310819.423909.258570@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
curtiss@hetnet.nl says...

That's true - but it's exactly what Eddy is getting at. You *know* what
many, many aspects of the scenario are, and this knowledge is often
something the real commander either didn't know, or knew *wrongly*. And
how do we model this?

As Donald Rumsfeld famously remarked:

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:20:57 -0400, Giftzwerg
NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:

Frank E wrote:

Hold it :)

In CotA it depends on the scenario - The scenario developer can create
alternative setups, units can start in different locations and at game
start a specific setup is randomly chosen. Not all scenarios have it,
but a lot do - I'll let Arjuna provide the full list of them or you can
open every scenario in the scenario editor to have a look at the
different setups.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx