• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Intel

Hi everyone! Next to last dev diary before christmas, and today we are going to talk about intel. We have been talking about ways to get intel a bit in previous diaries, like code cracking, scout planes and spies but not really talked about the system as a whole. So lets get to it!

Before intel was based essentially on comparing two nations crypto tech levels and it was a flat value covering everything. To make this more interesting we are splitting it into 4 separate values: Civilian/Industry Intel, Army Intel, Navy Intel, Air Intel. These affect what you can see in our new intel ledger, that replaces the little intel bit in the diplomacy interface from before for people with La Resistance:
upload_2019-12-11_12-24-29.png

Each of the tabs cover each type of intel (here we have civilian/industry selected), and they also come with mapmode information. As an example in the one above we aggregate building values as you zoom out (if you zoom in you see the same by state). This can help you when figuring out where to bomb or where and what kind of sabotage can be most effective.

The more intel you have the more information is displayed, we break down the levels in a tooltip per category:
upload_2019-12-11_12-37-57.png

So right now I can see how many army techs have been researched, but not specifically which. That requires 70% but then you can look at their tech tree. If I had 5% more I could see roughly how many of each division template the other nation had. At the moment I can only see that they exist but no real info about what they contain.

The army intel tab also lets you get a breakdown of the enemy stockpile of equipment.

Naval and air are similar:
upload_2019-12-11_12-44-10.png


upload_2019-12-11_12-44-42.png


Naval intel mapmode is quite powerful and at high intel levels will let you see where the enemy is placing certain missions
upload_2019-12-11_13-2-10.png


Intel can come from many different sources, for example:
- Spy networks
- Infiltrated spy assets
- Captured enemy spies
- Radar
- Broken Ciphers
- Scout planes
- Fighting the enemy in land combat
- Fighting the enemy in air combat
- Fighting the enemy in naval combat
And probably some I forgot.

Each source has a max it can contribute and may affect different intel values in different ways. For example if you have a spy network over the enemies coast, or scout naval areas with traffic you will get more naval intel. Each source also decays over time so its important to actively do things to keep your intel levels current and make sure you combine many sources to get as much intel as possible.

Here I have multiple sources:
upload_2019-12-11_13-17-34.png

Do note that the biggest chunk here is me doing some quick events with rewards of intel to cheat my way to quick screenshots ;). Also note that simply being democratic and having open trade laws make hiding the civilian part of your intel hard.

Knowing what kind of build strategy, templates, tech and stockpile an enemy has can be very useful allowing you to counter and attack them in the best way possible, but there is also direct advantage from relative intel which replaces the crypto level comparison from before.
upload_2019-12-11_13-35-41.png


See you next week for more cool stuff, and don't forget to tune into twitch at 16:00CET where we will be showing of France for the first time (aka watch Daniel accidentally leak stuff).
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
kindly want to mention that the americans completely missed the fact that the japanese built one of the largest carriers of ww2, the shinano.
Sinking of ships could be kept as a secret, (and in fact sometimes they were, even the british managed to do it) so while i agree that most capital ships were very well known overall, this wasn t the case in every society.
 
Will "fuzzy" numbers always be uniformly distributed around the true number? I.e. if Germany has 10k planes, poor intel might show 5k - 15k? I believe this is the case currently (someone can correct me if I'm wrong), and it makes "fuzzy" intel a little too helpful because true numbers can easily be inferred.
 
Sure it will. First of all, ever notice the stuff you get now? Locations of enemy divisions on your front line, the quantity, radar showing some units well behind the front lines? Now you get very little or none of it unless you implement the new intel mechanics. And you get WAY more info, the more you invest. You get to look at the Supply Areas of the enemy and can see the current and max values, Signal Intel will reveal even more enemy units behind enemy lines. Scout planes can show even more units. You can see enemy templates with high intel values.

Basically, with a very high investment in Intel, its about as much info as Tab Switching over to the enemy and taking a sneak peak.

Which is great from a multiplayer perspective, but in SP your strategy won't change, you won't adapt templates or plans because it's a one-size-fits-all situation.
 
We are discussing that one. I think either a game rules to block it to factions or we have the diplo action have to be approved by the sender before they can see the list

Please do the latter, imo it's quite dumb that people can just look at whatever you have with you having no say in the matter. Ideally things shouldn't even go to that tab without the player/AI manually setting those things as ok to sell in addition to countries having to ask to see the list. A game rule already exists to block to factions only iirc but that's not a great solution imo, more a stop gap measure rather than an actual solution especially since it doesn't account for cross faction alliances like Allies and Comintern or Axis and EACPS.
 
“Each of the tabs cover each type of intel (here we have civilian/industry selected), and they also come with mapmode information. As an example in the one above we aggregate building values as you zoom out (if you zoom in you see the same by state). This can help you when figuring out where to bomb or where and what kind of sabotage can be most effective.”

Can’t we basically guess this info though? Anyone who has played more than hours probably already knows the standard layout of the enemy’s factories and terrain. There needs to be a direct bonus to bombings and sabotage.


Will trade laws change at all in the sense of restricting trade to subjects and allies or same ideology in order to reduce intel leak?
 
Can’t we basically guess this info though? Anyone who has played more than hours probably already knows the standard layout of the enemy’s factories and terrain. There needs to be a direct bonus to bombings and sabotage.
You can guess, but the more accurate the guess, the better. Plus, its critical to know what states have damaged buildings, so you can go on to fresh places, or try to precision target buildings not damaged.

Will trade laws change at all in the sense of restricting trade to subjects and allies or same ideology in order to reduce intel leak?
IMO intel shouldn't be the prime concern to change trade laws. That has huge production/construction ramifications. The Intel side affects, should be a minor consideration, although they have smartly taken them into Intel's affect. Axis goes limited/closed far earlier than the allies, due to construction/production reasons, and this will help the Axis fend off the allied intel in the early stages of the war. By the time the allies need to switch to limited trade, the axis won't be worries about any offensive espionage operations, they would probably be concentrating exclusively of defensive measures.
 
Wow! You found one excample on missinformation. Did that change it's classification as a BB? Did the US think it was a DD? Did it dissapear from the docks?
My argument is that you should know how many BBs or CVs (and more in most countries) a nation has and build. That is historical. Did Germany know wether France had three, four or six BBs? Yes. Absolutly. Did they know how many toilets they had or radars? No.
There are other examples, the Germans built their initial submarines in Dutch shipyards to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles (presumably the Allies didn't know they were German or they would have stopped it.) Mind you, it is harder to hide capital ship construction, but the Japanese did it for at least 2 years.
Actually, the existence of the Yamato class BBs wasn't confirmed by Allied Intelligence until after they were launched (so over 3 years from being laid down until the Aliies could confirm their existence, we already know they were guessing on the capabilities until the records were captured during the occupation.)

1) The US Attache to Japan reported (in 1936) that Japan had already finalized plans on "designs for warships of 45,000 to 55,000 tons" (so probably wouldn't rejoin the naval treaties.)

2) His successor reported (in 1938) that construction had already started on "two 16-inch battleships of considerably greater tonnage than 35,000 tons and is planning to lay down a third and possibly a fourth." While all assumed the ships would exceed the 35,000-ton limit, none guessed by how much (Italy was closest at 46,000-tons with a possible increase to 50,000-tons). They also all insisted that the armament would be 12x16-inch guns (they didn't think Japan would be able to make 18-inch guns without importing the equipment to do so). The Japanese always referred to the 46 cm guns as "Special Type 40 cm", so they knew that BBs were under construction, but not SHBBs.

3) They didn't know the ship had only 9 guns until 1942 (they captured some documents at Tulagi), but it wasn't until spring of 1943 that they started to contemplate the possibility that they were larger. A CINCPAC Intelligence estimate listed 17.7-inch (45 cm) guns, but that changed back to 16-inch after continued intercepts referring to the "Special Type 40 cm" weapons.
 
Last edited:
Will "fuzzy" numbers always be uniformly distributed around the true number? I.e. if Germany has 10k planes, poor intel might show 5k - 15k? I believe this is the case currently (someone can correct me if I'm wrong), and it makes "fuzzy" intel a little too helpful because true numbers can easily be inferred.
I doubt it is distributed around the number, my guess is that 5-15k could literally be anything from 5000 to 15000, maybe even outside that range with low intel because numbers might be under or over estimated.
My guess is that as your intel grows, the ranges reported will decrease. The range is also probably based on the number being counted, so something like aircraft and tanks, which exist in the thousands, would be large ranges, small ships (Destroyers and Subs) would be medium ranges, and Capital ships would have the smallest ranges of all.
 
@podcat

Can you tell us how recon companies will affect this? Will they create more intel from combat than divisions without it? Right now recon companies aren't really worth it. Their impact on intel could help tip the scales, along with the rebalance of tactics.
 
@podcat

Can you tell us how recon companies will affect this? Will they create more intel from combat than divisions without it? Right now recon companies aren't really worth it. Their impact on intel could help tip the scales, along with the rebalance of tactics.
Excellent point. And it would be great if armored cars are a new "armored" recon company, so they can have their proper use in an armored division. I read an article about a lone US M8 Greyhound AC killing a Tiger 2 tank. It flanked it and pierced the rear armor at 50 yards, with its 37mm pew pew gun.
 
There are other examples, the Germans built their initial submarines in Dutch shipyards to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles (presumably the Allies didn't know they were German or they would have stopped it.) Mind you, it is harder to hide capital ship construction, but the Japanese did it for at least 2 years.
Actually, the existence of the Yamato class BBs wasn't confirmed by Allied Intelligence until after they were launched (so over 3 years from being laid down until the Aliies could confirm their existence, we already know they were guessing on the capabilities until the records were captured during the occupation.)

1) The US Attache to Japan reported (in 1936) that Japan had already finalized plans on "designs for warships of 45,000 to 55,000 tons" (so probably wouldn't rejoin the naval treaties.)

2) His successor reported (in 1938) that construction had already started on "two 16-inch battleships of considerably greater tonnage than 35,000 tons and is planning to lay down a third and possibly a fourth." While all assumed the ships would exceed the 35,000-ton limit, none guessed by how much (Italy was closest at 46,000-tons with a possible increase to 50,000-tons). They also all insisted that the armament would be 12x16-inch guns (they didn't think Japan would be able to make 18-inch guns without importing the equipment to do so). The Japanese always referred to the 46 cm guns as "Special Type 40 cm", so they knew that BBs were under construction, but not SHBBs.

3) They didn't know the ship had only 9 guns until 1942 (they captured some documents at Tulagi), but it wasn't until spring of 1943 that they started to contemplate the possibility that they were larger. A CINCPAC Intelligence estimate listed 17.7-inch (45 cm) guns, but that changed back to 16-inch after continued intercepts referring to the "Special Type 40 cm" weapons.
The Japanese went to GREAT lengths to hide the Yamato construction. IIRC, the drydock was covered and the site that the guns were tested was in a huge cave, hidden from ariel intel. This can be reflected by Japan's limited trade (and frankly their should be some other non-cipher counter-espionage buffs, as the Japanese had been historically a very closed society forEVER). If figure by the time it comes to the 1940-ish decision for the US to pick Carriers or BBs, it or the UK shouldn't be anywhere near being able to spy on Japan. And hopefully the slightly altered US Focus Tree will change the MAGIC Decrypt (should now be Naval Intel vs. Japan) buffs to be "at war" required...a severe oversight from MtG.
 
Cheers for the DD Podcat, and the extra info from you and Bobby :D. The way intel is covered looks brilliant, and comfortably the best approach to this in any HoI4 game to-date. Really like the many sources of intel, separate ways to get it, and the way it's split between army, navy, air force and civilian stuff :cool:.

Naval intel mapmode is quite powerful and at high intel levels will let you see where the enemy is placing certain missions

This is super cool, super historically plausible, and super important for gameplay - love it :D

Operatives with local tags (so sending an italian-american to spy in italy) do give better results

Very nice attention to detail :cool:

For an intelligence-related pic, here's an image of USS Tautog, one of the most successful submarines of WW2. How does this relate to intelligence? The US submarine campaign against Japan was assisted greatly by their intelligence on Japanese convoy routes and naval movements, allowing their submarines to have a greater impact, all else being equal, on reducing Japan's capacity to wage war.

Uss_tautog.jpg
 
Liking it so far, but not really digging the look of the icons (research, etc) in the screenshot. Would there be an option to have the old ones, or would I have to mod those back in?
 
This is very exciting. Having served as an officer in armored reconnaissance formations and tactical and counter-intelligence, I can tell you you're getting this right. Multi-disciplinary and multi-sourced intelligence, along the with time value of reporting, are cornerstones of the trade. Bravo!
 
Hey, is it possible to assign some missions to agents which can cause political chaos or even disasters and result in reduction of stability, war support and other bad things (like strikes and draft dodging) ? Also, I hope my agents can sabotage enemy countries in various ways, like damaging buildings, destroying equipment, assassinating political leaders (this can reduce political power) , making small-scale ambush, and even tricking enemy troops into attacking each other.
 
Hey, is it possible to assign some missions to agents which can cause political chaos or even disasters and result in reduction of stability, war support and other bad things (like strikes and draft dodging) ? Also, I hope my agents can sabotage enemy countries in various ways, like damaging buildings, destroying equipment, assassinating political leaders (this can reduce political power) , making small-scale ambush, and even tricking enemy troops into attacking each other.

It sounds to me (but correct me if I'm wrong) that you're talking about things like Operatives and Operations :).