I think it would be more fun to have my cake and eat it too.

psychoak has another thrice-damned good point when he basically asks why so many TBS games have semi-buried espionage in underwhelming unit-based systems. Faced with that good crit, I find that I'd actually rather see espionage methods/skills as traits that could be attached to both champion and regular units, and leaving what those units are called called to the story layer for the given game.

Abstracted intelligence networks are also a fun and reasonable idea, and the spymaster's desk interface is just not a main map thing. And, as Denryu notes, in a game like Elemental, there should most definitely be a Third Way that is all about spell research and casting.

As I have understood there will be no premade combat units in Elemental but instead up to the player to train them as wished. With that in mind I feel the best spy solution would be to keep at least the most advanced spying abilities to only heroes + special magically conjured beings (e.g. invisible stalker: a perfect spy and assassin). Personally I would not like to mix the spying with any military unit, because the abilities are so different if Elemental turns out to treat invading armies like usual in such a game. Normally you can't enter enemy lands. If you go with a military unit onto an opponent's (at least enemy) city you actually attack it ... (e.g. GC2). Under such conditions it makes much less sense that a whole army would also have the ability to sneak around and assassinate the town governor. For example, how would a heavy cavalry with your coulourful banner held high sneak into a city, stay hidden and then backstab a ruler inside a house with a poisonous dagger? ... It would be too complex to try and make everything fit. Scouting though is another thing that should be for everyone.

Pigeonpigeon was writing that spying easily gets on your nerves because you get backstabbed yourself, you have your cities rioting etc. I would say it is much like another dimension of the tactical combat: understandably the player doesn't like to lose a city or hero or resource, but at the same time you have the chance to steal it from your opponent which is all the nicer. And there is often an even greater pleasure from managing to really hurt your opponent by spying (say by assassination and rioting) then by traditional military feats. We have all experienced the military victory a zillion times. If the spaying allows active actions and an element of chance it can be as rewarding as the military system.   

It must also be said that the system would be optional. And if you then choose to use it, the player is taking a calculated risk if not spending any thoughts and resources on protection against such attacks and problems. So it would not be unfair and "a bolt out of the blue" if a leader got assassinated.

As regards that it would be too much micro-managament, I think it would be a problem only if the system is not well done and in particular if the results do not matter for winning the game. The abilities must be important enough that you would HAVE to take it into account or risk serious consequences should your enemy try this angle of attack. This was one of the failures of GC2 were you could not do much, just spend money passively.

The beta should provide ample opportunities to tweak such a system into something people would like (i.e. those who would consider playing with the spy option, the others could still play just like they prefer).  

I hope I haven't come out as "anti-spying". That's not the case at all. If there is a system that really makes it feel immersive, like real spying then I think that could definitely be a good thing.

I am just against paying a certain amount of coin per turn to maintain some nebulous "spy network" and then paying the again for an "anti-spying network". Even if they didn't appear on the main map, if you can give spies specific missions with varying chances of success, costs, and possible benefits - I would love to see something like that done well.

Goodmorning all,

Firstly, I to am against the pay per turn for attacks and pay per turn for defence methods, and i hope my suggestion didn't come across as being that method.


I think one benifit to my suggested method is that it is quite compatible with Magical Servents and scrying.

Most of my system involves spy units being found in your faction, and them being given specific tasks on the global level.  There is no reason why an Air elemental couldn't be crafted with basic spy abilities, or semi-animated statues, given as gifts...   Magically created units can easily be incoperated, the better the resulting spy the more versitile the resulting spy the more the magic cost...

I agree the Paranoia funcitonality could prove a turnoff if allowed to be too powerful, But consider the costs for excicuting a paranoia worthy attack,  Get a very good spy, pay extra to train them to take a place in the opposing faction,  Risk loosing the spy for nothing, risk the spy getting caught every time you call on it for information, (including location and recennt travles on the overland map, you wouldn't see that unless you requested it.) you would Get very little from the unit for a Very long time as the unit rose up the ranks (or get some, but risk of being caught.)  You would also risk the Spy turning double agent on you, because they learn to truely respect the faction you sent them to.   And you risk being lied to when you do call for information (because the enemy may know about your spy and feed you false information).  Still if all those deterents still leve you with a looking over your shoulder fealing you don't like... an off button can always be included. 

I think having a 'spy unit' on the map would be a mistake,  Having an hidden assiasin gorrilia unit that stelthed around, SURE!!  But have that be prat of the WAR and Millitary tree,  not the spy/war/diplomatic tree.


In short, I see spy units as individuals you give missions to, you pay them you train them, and they go away and come back reporting on thier successes/failours, controled on the global scale.  The more interesting/powerful missions would take many turns to complete. But supplimenting this is a wide array of minor spying missions to learn basic informations.  Subtifuge and misdirection, Politics and spygames.  This is what i hope for.

One thing i really want to see is diplomacy taking several turns, and somebody has a spy they can risk the spy to -tweak- or sabatage the meeting.

Take care all,

Robbie Price

If the spy system is well done, based on training your spies in various abilities/skills (just like you train a warrior), there is not much difference when it comes to "luck" and "bad luck" compared with the usual combat system. For a fighting unit you train it and it goes out in the fog on the map, meets another unit and dies are rolled ... One is killed and one survives (much depending on your earlier military investments). The only difference with spies is that per definition they try to stay hidden, close to you. But there is the counter spy defense. The best game solution is that when you have such a defense (various levels and types could be built up) you have a chance every turn to get to know that there is a spy in your realm, or the precise city. Or if you have a really good network and luck you would actually be able to catch the spy directly. In this way, you could learn in say turn no. 14 that there is a spy in your capital. You would then be under pressure to decide what to do: try to catch him by developing better protection in the capital, or take a calculated risk and wait ... He might try several missions, but not succeed, at the same time as you reinforce your defenses. And in turn no. 20 you might finally catch him (and feel more on the safe side) or have say a local leader killed by him, depending on not just chance but chance in combination with your abilities and your opponent's. Then it doesn't feel like you are powerless to stop e.g. an assination or sabotage. Instead, it becomes a real story.

After all, often in military combat you have no way of preparing for or knowing everything about the opponents' strength, especially when magic is involved and conjured creatures can strike unexpectedly, etc. For me, that's part of the fun. A certain level of paranoia is good for a strategy game, if the system is just well thought out and handled. So I would strongly condone a well-crafted spy system with real tactical and strategic choices for both sides. Skill should definately be part of the spy system as you suggest. And I would agree with above, against a "pay twice" system, where you just pay once for "spying" and again for "counterspying" without active choices or skills.

Well, if we were to make spying optional, which it would pretty much have to be), there's no reason not to make sabotage optional (seperately) as well....... I'm currently trying to think of a non-dice-roll system...... Perhaps something could be done with the people-as-a-resource idea..... all depends on how you control your population, and how much....

Now, this join army thing is interesting... what if the spy went into battle against you or your allies? Sooooooo many possibilities....... One thing I thought of is since people are a resource acquired largely through immigration, you could have spies be special population units that the victem cannot easily see as spies.... you could have an enemy city where all the people are spies for you! (I think I saw an episode of "Mission Impossible" like that once....)

Well, in realtiy the spy would probably desert, and considering their stealth skills they could probably get back with little trouble..... probably wouldn't affect the unit much, so yeah, ignoring the spy would probably be the best option...... although a few feautres like "backstab", "begin rout", and so on might be fun.

I will say I do not like the idea of an espionage victory condition. I would need to see the final implementation but as a general idea I do not like that (even if there is an espionage system in the game, I can't see how you could have a good victory condtion based on it.)

Indeed. When I came up with the idea, I was thinking a lot of the Romulan Tal Shiar: when was the last time they were challanged in their supremacy!

I'm with psychoak on this one. There is simply no way to put something this involved in the game without making a micromanagement nightmare on anything but the tiniest maps. It's the same argument as true tactical ground combat in GC3 - it might be fun a few times, but it shouldn't eat half your game time. Every suggestion so far will result in people quitting in frustration before the game gets out of beta. Anything but a very abstracted system is a game breaker.

Give the DL spy system 10/10 for abstractedness. The TA system might be an 8, anything lower than a 7 on that scale will result in micro hell. It just makes large games too unplayable, and one of the main design decisions forthis game was to maximize the playability of truly huge games.