"The Spy"

[CWO Marc]

@SS:

they get to take away a tech from the enemy and keep for themselves.

If by this you mean “copy an enemy’s tech, so that you both get to use it rather than just him using it”, that’s fine.  If you mean “deprive the enemy of a tech, so that it becomes yours rather than his,” that’s not believable.  Stealing technology isn’t like stealing a car; you can’t deprive an enemy of technological knowledge and tecnological manufacturing infrastructure just by grabbing a secret plan from somewhere.  When the Soviets reverse-engineered the B-29 to produce their own copy of the plane, that action didn’t suddenly cause all the B-29s in the US inventory to suddenly disappear, or cause all the US factories that built the B-29 to suddenly stop working.  If you somehow stole the famous top-secret formula for Coca-Cola syrup, which is apparently kept in a safe at Coke’s corporate headquarters and which is supposedly known in its entirety to only one or two people at any one time, this would not bring the worldwide manufacturing of Coca-Cola to an immediate halt.  The subcontractors who make the various components of the Coca-Cola syrup – each one of them knowing just part of the formula – would keep right on manufacturing the stuff as if nothing had happened.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

@CWO Marc. In my original post I stated that there would be a whole range of espionage activities going on during the war. The concept of “The Spy” was to signify that one nation had the upper hand during that round of play. It could be that they had a major breakthrough of some kind in breaking a code or gathering intelligence or stealing technology or whatever.

I also mentioned the ninja in the game Shogun. What I really liked about that was the fun that it brought to the game between the players (not the pieces on the board). We would all have to tiptoe around the guy that had the ninja and hope that he would use it against someone else. That’s the element that I want to bring to this game-the fun and the not-so-subtle razzing between the players. I could see my friends renaming the spy “The Sh!t Disturber” or something like that. By having only one piece that represents spying instead of everyone spying every round you would create a dynamic between the players that would transcend what is happening with the pieces on the board. Obviously this rule would be much more fun if there were more than 2 people playing the game because there would only be one player that you could use “The Spy” against.

I’m starting to lean away from using dice to determine what action to use. The thing that makes Research and Development in this game a total failure is that there is only dumb luck and not sound strategy involved. Players should be rewarded for the choices that they make more and punished less for the dice that they roll IMO. I want to provide 3 or 4 clear, simple choices that the player has at their disposal for that turn. For example; France wins the roll in the first round. If given the 2 choices that I provided in my original post and maybe something to do with research and technology, the choice to move a fighter out of France before Germany invades would be hands down a better choice than taking money that they would surrender in 10 minutes or developing a weapon that they will never use. To do it this way would also keep the other players guessing as to how it will be used and would inform the choices that they will make. If you’re invading a territory of the nation who has “The Spy” you might want to bring extra units in knowing that they could move an extra unit into that territory. See what I mean, more strategy.

[General 6 Stars]

Both sides would have same tech.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

How about some way of turning one strict neutral nation into a pro-axis or pro-aliies nation? Would it be plausible for an apparatus in WW2 to turn a nation using some sort of cloak and dagger method? I know coups have been staged since then but I’m not aware of it happening in the war.

If so how would that work if you chose that option? It should be something difficult to achieve like rolling a specific number and perhaps paying the bank the number of IPC’s that territory is worth.

Any thoughts on that choice and how to make it work?

[General 6 Stars]

Naw. We have a rule for strict neutrals where you must roll a die and get the territories value or less on die roll. If you don’t u have to retreat and pay the bank up to the territories value.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

That seems way too easy to turn a strict neutral. Nations should be focusing more on fighting each other and not so much on strict neutrals during a world war.

What I’m thinking is that;
-You have to control an adjacent territory to attempt to turn a strict neutral
-You can only make one attempt per nation to turn it (in reality if you fail they would probably be p!ssed off at you and hang your spies)
-You have to roll a 6 to turn it. I like your idea of having to pay the number of IPC’s the territory is worth for failing, SS.
-You wouldn’t move into the territory, you would simply make it a pro-axis or pro-aliies neutral. After that anyone could move into it without violating Starfleet’s Prime Directive (or strict neutrality).
-You don’t have to be at war to do turn a strict neutral. Like all actions of “The Spy”, this would all be done covertly of course and denied vehemently.

As far as Research and Development goes, I would reason this by saying that your espionage activities have accumulated enough intel from both friends and foes and combined with your own research that you have a 50-50 chance of developing a weapon. How this would work;
-You roll 3 dice for free. A roll of 6 means you are successful. You only count one 6.
-If successful you roll the die for a weapon. You then CHOOSE which table to apply that roll to. That’s the way the rule should have been written in the first place. Why on earth would you ever spend your resources in the real world to develop a weapon that does you no good? Oops, we developed rockets, what were we thinking? It started out as a good idea to have Research and Development but then it turned into a really bad idea because the whole thing was left to chance instead of strategy.

[Caesar-Seriona]

The only way you to use a spy logically is if you do a Fog of War game which would be a nightmare to do on a board game or the spy steals tech.

[General 6 Stars]

I did add the spy steals tech ( defender keeps tech ) card ( 1 only ) to each of the 6 countries event cards. Each countries deck of cards has 20 to 22 cards in each deck. So the spy steals tech card may never get turned over during the game.

[Caesar-Seriona]

You could set up something that a spy could damage factories, airfields, or ports by dice roll.

[General 6 Stars]

That’s been discussed by me and Sean already. Was told that is not what the spy did.

[Caesar-Seriona]

A Spy in theory could do it. I can easily see a spy blowing something up if it covered his job for him to get out. The problem is that a spy “someone who watches” basically has no use in a game like this. However, according to wikipedia, a general term of the word “spy” also involves them destroying stuff too. So for the sake of logic, you should be able to let a spy destroy factories, ports, or airfields. However, it’s your unit so do what you wish.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

I went with 3 options;
1. Move into or out of a combat zone after opponents combat movement.
2. Turn a strict neutral.
3. Research and Development.

This keeps it simple and leaves less to chance and requires more strategy. I made a video which also includes Railways and Hospitals. You can view it here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSz5Il0CRyE&t=3s

[Caesar-Seriona]

Turn a strict neutral would have to most use for a spy in this case but at that point, it’s not a spy, just a political officer with a motive.

[GeneralHandGrenade]

“The Spy” doesn’t represent a singular spy, it represents the whole espionage network and all of their political operatives. The spy refers to the player sitting at the table playing the nation who was lucky enough to win the roll for that round of play. They would be trying to turn a nation in their favour any number of ways including political influence, trade sanctions or incentives, staging coups, sowing the seeds of discontent amongst a nation’s population, etc. You have to use your imagination a bit to think of ways that you could turn any strict neutral and those ways would probably be different for each strict neutral nation.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Yeah, I get a spy isn’t a single unit. I don’t think an infantry is one soldier.