Why did you castrate the Spys?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I've never seen the AI use spies to destroy resource improvements, but if they did that would be a huge pain in the ass.

I've seen this tactic pretty regularly from the AI. They love to attack your strategic resources when they are at war with you... And I do the same to them

Yeah, I wish there was a little bit more you could do with them. As it is, if you don't have any money, you are even more limited in their uses.

While I agree they were WAY to powerful in Civ II, I still wish they could have some more uses...

[Cort Haus]

I'd rather have a low-powered spy unit in the game than a high-powered one, so I'm with those people that don't want the AI wrecking my Civ with a few hammers.

I actually find them quite useful in a close Space Race, beyond pillaging Aluminium. You can check up on exactly what each civ is building and what techs they are researching, which is subtle but enough to influence strategy.

Looking in cities to see what's going on is exactly what spying should be about. Nice sprite, too.

[monkspider]

Spies are a life saver in down to the wire space races.

[Jaybe]

Yeah, spies are fine, just as they are.

[DrSpike]

I don't think they should get extra abilities, because its hard to think of any that would be useful without unbalancing the game.

Perhaps we should not have access to all the information we currently have though, without the use of spies.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Perhaps we should not have access to all the information we currently have though, without the use of spies.

Then earlier spies would be necessary, perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 game earlier.
If 'power' ratings were to be spy dependent, I would definitely NOT want to have to figure them manually. Counting units, trying to account for units that have moved around (a deception used common enough historically) would be micro-hell wouldn't it.

[DrSpike]

Well I don't think so if it were implemented well, and sometimes doing thing in a highly abstracted way removes potential fun.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Traelin
I agree. Heck I may be stupid, but I can't even figure out how to get the stupid spies to detect an enemy spy. They keep taking out my oil well, and I got 4 spies surrounding that spot that still don't do squat. I mean according to the unintuitive Civilopedia, they're supposed to detect spies within a certain radius.

To defend your strategic (and other) resources, do like the AI does: Put combat units on them. If you fear loss of city production (e.g., space ship parts) or 'plans*' (unit dispositions), put many combat units in those cities to reduce chance of success.

If you want to see for sure if your spy can detect another spy, use the World Builder and give a civ a spy by one of yours and return to the game.

* I haven't had any evidence of the AI attempting this, but has higher chance of success in either of your 'capitals', so that is where you would focus your preventative efforts.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
One has to wonder how much people would appreciate stronger spies if the AI used them against the player more. Stealing specialists, blowing up improvements, and having relations ruined with third parties sounds fun until you're losing your hard earned specialists, having improvements you just spent dozens of turns building destroyed, and going to war with trading partners that you shared your military techs with.

Even with the spies as they are, people get bent out of shape when the AI knows where their units are and accuse it of cheating. I've never seen the AI use spies to destroy resource improvements, but if they did that would be a huge pain in the ass. I think people who want stronger spies are assuming that the Civ AI will continue it's long tradition of rarely, if ever, using them.

excellent point .

how expensive is scotland yard? If the price is moderate enough then spies are fine as is. their ability to provide recon even w/o open borders is very important in single and multi player. . .

[Dis]

considering civ2 spies were women, I don't think castrated is the right word to use here.

[Dis]

spies destroying improvements? come on. I don't buy it. spies aren't terrorists. blowing up a whole town? no way.

Spies are about obtaining secrets. And yes even stealing technology.

I'm against planting nukes, blowing things up, and poisoning water supplies.

But I support stealing technology. . Hell, I think even military units that capure a city with scientists or engineers in it should have a chance of stealing technology.

[Ming]

I really miss that feature... getting gold for taking a city is great, but I really loved getting a science from the ole civ 2 days. A war could really help you catch up in the science race.

[yin26]

That's exactly why the feature was taken out, I believe. The AI's absolute best hope of beating a good player is the Space Race. Also, the builder strategy would be a lot less appealing if warmongers were running all over the map picking up techs that they knew they could ignore to focus on military only.

[Son of David]

Civ2 spies allowed an important modern phenomenon to be modelled in the game - the phenomenon of scientists switching allegiance to other, more powerful countries, giving away top military secrets, etc.

It's not really possible to have such a 'Cold War' scenario in a Civ4 game.

(I won't mention again the fact that nuclear weapons are too easy to counter.)

[padillah]

A couple of points:
1) Terrorists are only called "Terrorists" by the enemy. Allies call them "freedom fighters". i.e. ask an American if the colonists were "terrorists". If you duck fast enough you might not get hit.

2) I think spies are fine the way they are (a little bit). The invisibility, crossing closed borders, destroying terrain improvements... all very worthwile exploits for a spy.

3) If any abilities are added to spys they should be information gathering only. Most other stuff gets unbalanced. Stealing technology, as it's name implies, can never be balanced (it's stealing).

Tom P.