As a non-competitive singleplayer type, I very much like the general idea of being a bit fuzzy on how close a rival is to ending the game. Especially if a good intelligence network can help reduce that fuzz more or less in proportion to the intel-counterintel resource totals for you & the faction you want to know about.
Aye, I agree with your espionage focus, although I love poring over my game graphs at cup of tea time, I think covering them with research-dispeling fog would be a very satisfying game dynamic. I guess the question in this however, is would the A.I. be able to infer the meaning that a human player would once "Flanders is pushing hard on quest" was revealled. Coming from a total n00b space...I suspect that programming an A.I. to assess "what it doesn't know yet" and act adroitly would be exceedingly difficult.
Um...hope that's clear...try this: If unveiling victory data will effect a priority shift in the AI, then I think it could only be an all or nothing scenario, because if you only got info on one team, then the A.I. could only respond to it as "biggest" threat because it doesn't have any comparables.
randomly being given a one or two use meteor spell when your or the AI losing is bad?
Lol, I think the biggest fear there is that "randomly" doesn't sit well amongst the conceptual pattern you have provided. But aside from that yes, getting an "out" card like that, especially to the point of learning to rely on it, would be annoying. I think this is a question that crops up often in games with multiplayer : Random versus balance. THe idea that these two titans are locked in unresolvable struggle has always bugged me, I don't see why we can't have both.Sure it turns out unfair for some players sometimes...so what?...diversity is interesting.
Perfect balance on the other hand, is to me the precondition of the golden path...that is, one strategy to rule them all. Er...okay rambling off-topic now...will give this more thought in effort to add context.