Spying

[Lambiorix_be]

Originally posted by Jaybe

It is already noted in the patch 3.13 notes.

oh good. thx for the info

[Drachen]

Great Wall to Great Spy gambit

passive observation of AI research to determine your research path and timing of tech trades

[LzPrst]

I suspect that spies being relatively new will require some reworking of established practices. I believe spying is currently somewhat underestimated. in time this will probably change.

[SpencerH]

I dont use em.

As for "great spies", almost by definition, we will never know their names. Pretending that there havent been "spies" or "agents" who's efforts havent had enormous effect (usually in battle) is ridiculous though.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I dont use em.

As for "great spies", almost by definition, we will never know their names. Pretending that there havent been "spies" or "agents" who's efforts havent had enormous effect (usually in battle) is ridiculous though.

I don't disagree with your general statement, but would say spies more often are important in the pre-battle than battle itself. Laying the groundwork for their chosen side to have a strategic or tactical advantage (or minimizing said advantage for the other combatant).

A few noteworthy spies? How about the disgusting John Walker, his son Michael Walker, and his co-conspirator Jerry Whitworth? Firaxis was probably wise to keep those names out of the list!!!

But before we say how unrealistic it is to have Great Spies, a similar argument could be made for most/all of the GP. A GP really represents an impulse in a society not just one person. And that's all good, it's a game!

[Yosho]

Well, what about the russian spies that stole key nuclear bomb information from the US? For example, Klaus Emil Fuch. Sure, the USSR would eventually have had the bomb anyway, but if they hadn't gotten it so fast the whole history of the 20th century might have been different.

[frenzyfol]

Originally posted by wodan11

I don't disagree. But I'm curious why you blew up his horse? At that stage in the game, I would usually be happy to have my enemies build cavalry rather than infantry or something.

Wodan

True, bad judgment on my behalf.

[nbarclay]

For the most part, I love the passive effects in the new espionage system. It's nice being able to learn more about what rivals are doing, and none of the information provided is outside the scope of what a civ with a good network of spies and informants could reasonably expect to know.

The only thing I don't like in the passive effects is the loss of a lot of graph information that was available in previous versions. It might be interesting if data on civs that players don't have decent espionage information on would contain a margin of possible error, with the size of the margin depending on how large an espionage disadvantage the player faces. (The graphs could represent unreliable estimates with dotted lines instead of solid lines, and the margin of possible error, where applicable, could be shown after each civ's name.) But it's annoying not having even a ballpark estimate.

I view the active spy missions as providing too much power with too little danger of negative consequences to be either realistic or fun. I might enjoy the system if I enjoyed tearing down rivals, but my attitude toward Civ has never been one that enjoys destroying things without a really good reason.

As a general rule, sabotage should only make sense during times of war or in situations where the nation engaging in the sabotage is prepared to have its spy missions interpreted as an act of war. (In game terms, the victim would be allowed to declare war without any diplomatic penalty since the spy committed the first aggressive act.) Further, there should be a risk that if a civ is caught in acts of sabotage - especially repeated acts of sabotage - it will be blamed for future acts of sabotage in which the perpetrator is unknown. Sabotage attempts should be fairly common during times of war, but should be something that both players and AIs think long and hard about during times of peace.

Poisoning water should be viewed as an even more serious act of war than sabotage. It should also have serious diplomatic consequences regardless of whether or not a war results. And my impression is that until the modern era, the game makes poisoning water more powerful than real-world precedents can justify.

The power to force a civ to change civics ought to be replaced with a power to stir up unrest that will cause a small happiness penalty unless a civ changes civics. If spies keep at it long enough, they might be able to create enough pressure that a civ will view it as better to yield to the pressure than to keep its current civics. But unless a civ already has enough happiness problems that it is not particularly stable, trying to force a change in civics should be a long, expensive process. Further, when a civ sees that outsiders are trying to create pressure to change civics, it ought to be able to use its own resources to counteract the pressure.

Forcing changes in state religion should only be possible if there are at least almost as many people in a civ who believe the religion you want the civ to change to as there are who believe its current state religion. I can see a possibility that spies might be able to find a way to tip the balance in situations where a nation is divided regarding what religion ought to be its state religion. But when one religion is clearly dominant, it is absurd to believe that espionage could cause a change in the state religion under any but the most unusual of circumstances.

Fomenting city revolts should only be practical when cities already face serious unhappiness, or where at least a large minority of a city's culture does not belong to the current owner. There needs to be something the spies can use as a catalyst to build on in their efforts to incite a revolt.

The result is that I view the active espionage element of the game as much more of an annoyance than a benefit. It brings back not-so-fond memories of the way special units in Call to Power could engage in hostile acts essentially with impunity. I really wish there were an option to turn the active missions off (other than stealing technology) - or, perhaps better, make them available only during wartime.

Ironically, I can think of at least two types of active spy missions that could have made a lot of sense but weren't included in BtS. In the real world, spies sometimes steal enemy offensive plans, helping the defenders be better prepared (which could be reflected with a temporary extra defensive bonus). And spies sometimes steal information about enemy defensive deployments (which could be reflected with a temporary reduction in the defensive bonuses of units that are fortified and/or have city defense bonuses). These would be a much better reflection of the most important roles that spies have played historically than most of the active missions currently available.

[Goncyn]

Originally posted by wodan11
Ephialtes (recognized by historians as beginning the era of Greek Democracy)

I think this is more likely to be the Ephialtes who betrayed the Greeks at the Battle of Thermopylae by revealing a hidden pass to the Persians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephialtes_of_Trachis

[nbarclay]

Ephialtes certainly sounds like a great traitor, but a great spy? No way. He was just someone who happened to know some local information the enemy didn't, and was willing to give it to the enemy with an expectation of being rewarded. It sounds to me as if the only real spying involved was by the Persians, who I would guess went around offering a reward for anyone willing to provide information about an alternate route. And while the results certainly had a significant impact, the means used hardly constituted a major contribution to the art of spycraft.

A number of acts of spying with a significant impact on history have really been nothing more than simple treason - acts that anyone with access to the right information and a willingness to betray his or her country could have accomplished. I would consider it unreasonable to regard people as great spies under those circumstances.

On the other hand, I do believe that there are such things as great spies. I don't remember the person's name, but I remember something on the History Channel about a man working for England in World War II who created an entire fictional spy network and tricked the Germans into trusting it. The Germans got reports from their nonexistent spies, and different sources of information within the fake network could corroborate each other to build up trust, thereby setting up a golden opportunity to pass misinformation. I think that kind of artistry merits the title "great spy."

[b etor]

spying