Espionage is pathetic

CaptainPatch · Sep 22, 2013

Wodan said:
It's not that hard to guess (with ~95% accuracy) what tech your target civ has that you don't. Well, don't research that tech!

Sometimes you have no choice. I deliberately chose to NOT research Gunpowder, meanwhile spying on a nation that did have it. The Gathering Intelligence phase was 120 turns. 100+ turns later, the ONLY tech available to me to research was Gunpowder. On turn 118, I was informed that the target no longer had anything worth stealing.

[Pitiful performance by that spy. 100+ turns = more than a century, and not able to grab one tech in all that time?]

isau · Sep 22, 2013

CaptainPatch said:
Sometimes you have no choice. I deliberately chose to NOT research Gunpowder, meanwhile spying on a nation that did have it. The Gathering Intelligence phase was 120 turns. 100+ turns later, the ONLY tech available to me to research was Gunpowder. On turn 118, I was informed that the target no longer had anything worth stealing.

[Pitiful performance by that spy. 100+ turns = more than a century, and not able to grab one tech in all that time?]

The larger question is why you allowed a spy to linger for 120 turns in a city. Well, and why you think how something plays on Warlord difficulty is good for a general pronoucement that a system is "pathetic."

Anyway if you want to find an answer to whether spying plays a role in the game, all you need to do is watch for the number of times (especially on higher difficulties) you grab a tech, think you're about to have a breakway lead, and then get the message "X has been stolen!" For some reason for me it's always Astronomy, usually stolen 10-30 turns after I get it. There are a couple of different ways to possibly defend against it, that vary with the map type even, but regardless your basic contention that spying is pathetic is wrong. It plays an important role in the game, just not always one where you are the agressor, and certainly not when the game is played in easy mode.

Yzman · Sep 22, 2013

sendos said:
I'm surprised that they don't have a spy at their capital. Perhaps you should not push your luck. If they're ahead in tech too, that also scratches my head a bit, because top tech AI always guard their capitals with spies.

They tend to guard later on, once they caught you. Needless to say, 2 techs later, my veteran spy was killed by his counter spy. He was not very happy I broke my promise to not spy anymore.

But it didn't matter, he remained friendly oddly enough.

Arachnofiend · Sep 22, 2013

CaptainPatch said:
Sometimes you have no choice. I deliberately chose to NOT research Gunpowder, meanwhile spying on a nation that did have it. The Gathering Intelligence phase was 120 turns. 100+ turns later, the ONLY tech available to me to research was Gunpowder. On turn 118, I was informed that the target no longer had anything worth stealing.

[Pitiful performance by that spy. 100+ turns = more than a century, and not able to grab one tech in all that time?]

When you play on higher difficulties the AI will generate more science and will be more vulnerable to spying. Using the same strategy you're talking about here, I can usually swipe gunpowder from an AI on Immortal in 20 turns max, and that's when he's a warmonger that's doing poorly and I'm only stealing from him because I know he's on a different tech path. I usually steal it in 8-12 turns.

Seriously dude, Warlord is not the same game as everyone else is playing. At least get to Prince before claiming you have knowledge of how this game works.

CaptainPatch · Sep 22, 2013

isau said:
The larger question is why you ...think how something plays on Warlord difficulty is good for a general pronouncement that a system is "pathetic."

The whole concept of Difficulty settings is that the higher you go, the more challenging things become, right? One would think that by using a lower Difficulty settings, it would be _easier_ to accomplish the various tasks. More money rolling in, weaker opponents on the battlefield, stealing tech happens faster with lower chances of losing spies, etc.

Measuring the strengths and weaknesses of a game assumes a certain amount of consistency, no matter what Difficulty setting is used. But from what people have been saying here, the Espionage mechanics are VERY different between lower Difficulty settings than it is for higher Difficulty settings. Oddly, as it has been described, it's _easier_ to steal tech at the higher setting! That's directly opposite from what intuition suggests.

Stealing tech really only rests on ONE aspect, ultimately: Is there something there to be stolen? One tech or twenty techs, same challenge, modified by offensive capability and defenses in place.

What makes the tech-stealing mechanism pathetic is that it's even possible to _have_ 100+ Intelligence Gathering periods, at ANY Difficulty setting. Anything, at any setting that involves more than _ten_ turns is excessive (in my opinion). Just how much Intelligence needs to be gathered to make a grab? At 100+ turns, the spy could have gone to college, learned the subject, and done the research himself, and had 50 turns to spare! If the idea is to make the task easier or harder, than adjust the chance of success/failure accordingly. Which, as it currently stands, is _still_ an additional factor after that excruciating waiting period.

isau · Sep 22, 2013

The whole concept of Difficulty settings is that the higher you go, the more challenging things become, right? One would think that by using a lower Difficulty settings, it would be _easier_ to accomplish the various tasks. More money rolling in, weaker opponents on the battlefield, stealing tech happens faster with lower chances of losing spies, etc.

You would think that if you didn't have a very good understanding of what you are talking about and were given to sweeping generalizations based on minimal levels of observation, yes. But since the entire point of stealing tech is catching up to people who are ahead of you I think most people quickly realize that when you are ahead there are less things to steal.

CaptainPatch said:
Anything, at any setting that involves more than _ten_ turns is excessive (in my opinion).

If you could steal a tech every 10 turns, then by the time you had a 3 spies it would be foolish to do any research at all. You could just poor all your resources into gold, culture, whatever else, place some spies and be getting a tech once every 3 turns.

Yzman · Sep 22, 2013

CaptainPatch said:
The whole concept of Difficulty settings is that the higher you go, the more challenging things become, right? One would think that by using a lower Difficulty settings, it would be _easier_ to accomplish the various tasks. More money rolling in, weaker opponents on the battlefield, stealing tech happens faster with lower chances of losing spies, etc.

Measuring the strengths and weaknesses of a game assumes a certain amount of consistency, no matter what Difficulty setting is used. But from what people have been saying here, the Espionage mechanics are VERY different between lower Difficulty settings than it is for higher Difficulty settings. Oddly, as it has been described, it's _easier_ to steal tech at the higher setting! That's directly opposite from what intuition suggests.

Stealing tech really only rests on ONE aspect, ultimately: Is there something there to be stolen? One tech or twenty techs, same challenge, modified by offensive capability and defenses in place.

What makes the tech-stealing mechanism pathetic is that it's even possible to _have_ 100+ Intelligence Gathering periods, at ANY Difficulty setting. Anything, at any setting that involves more than _ten_ turns is excessive (in my opinion). Just how much Intelligence needs to be gathered to make a grab? At 100+ turns, the spy could have gone to college, learned the subject, and done the research himself, and had 50 turns to spare! If the idea is to make the task easier or harder, than adjust the chance of success/failure accordingly. Which, as it currently stands, is _still_ an additional factor after that excruciating waiting period.

I don't even know why this is still a topic and you are continuing to defend your position on this. There is nothing counter intuitive about the system. The rate at which you steal is based on the amount of science that the AI makes. At low difficulties the AI is handicapped, thereby not having as much science. This makes tech steals harder, which MAKES SENSE. On higher difficulties the AI is practically bleeding techs so its much easier to mooch them.

Think about it like this, you are asking for a system in the game where you are able to steal more at a lower difficulty because the AI has less to steal. That makes zero sense. Espionage isn't "harder" at lower difficulties. Its just not as useful, because you are already too far ahead.

Stop judging the game from a beginner level. This is like playing on Settler and complaining the AI is not aggressive enough. Hint: The AI will never declare war on the player on that setting.

You keep complaining about this stupid wait that you had (100 +), but everyone has explained it to you, yet you still persist on bringing it up, like it is a valid complaint because of your one game on a handicapped difficulty level. If you get waits that long, it means don't bother stealing. The potential is too low. I give up.

Come back and complain about features when you correctly understand them and have played AT LEAST on prince, which is considered the even level ground.

CaptainPatch · Sep 22, 2013

isau said:
If you could steal a tech every 10 turns, then by the time you had a 3 spies it would be foolish to do any research at all. You could just poor all your resources into gold, culture, whatever else, place some spies and be getting a tech once every 3 turns.

Not once have I equated that finishing the Intelligence Gathering period = a guaranteed tech being stolen. I wholeheartedly agree that actually stealing a tech every 10 turns would be ridiculous. All I'm saying is, goddamn it, make the _attempt_! The **probability** of success is greater at lower Difficulty and less at higher settings. Modified by offensive capability and defenses of course.

By _voluntarily_ extending the prep phase, the player may have the possibility to improve his spy's chance of surviving the attempt. That still doesn't guarantee that the attempt was successful; just that the spy lives to try again another day. It also left-handedly puts the target defenses on alert, so it may require another _short_ period of prep to let things cool down enough to make another attempt. Or not, and just take his chances knowing the probability of success -- and death for the agent -- has become more unfavorable.

Wodan · Sep 24, 2013

CaptainPatch said:
Not once have I equated that finishing the Intelligence Gathering period = a guaranteed tech being stolen. I wholeheartedly agree that actually stealing a tech every 10 turns would be ridiculous. All I'm saying is, goddamn it, make the _attempt_! The **probability** of success is greater at lower Difficulty and less at higher settings. Modified by offensive capability and defenses of course.

By _voluntarily_ extending the prep phase, the player may have the possibility to improve his spy's chance of surviving the attempt. That still doesn't guarantee that the attempt was successful; just that the spy lives to try again another day. It also left-handedly puts the target defenses on alert, so it may require another _short_ period of prep to let things cool down enough to make another attempt. Or not, and just take his chances knowing the probability of success -- and death for the agent -- has become more unfavorable.

Your suggestions might improve the mechanic. But I think you're still trying to make what is essentially a "come from behind" mechanic into something that is more generally useful even when you're ahead. That's not its purpose.

"Come from behind" mechanics are useful in any multiplayer game because otherwise, once someone gets ahead, it's a "rich get richer" game. The first person to get ahead would essentially have already won, and all players would simply be going through the motions of the game.

With "come from behind" mechanics like espionage stealing, players who aren't the leader, possibly through no fault of their own, have strategies they can do and things they can attempt that will give them at least a shot at reversing their situation and turning the tables. That's why we play the game, to have a chance to win.

Your suggestions to change espionage so that it's more useful when you're ahead will decrease the "come from behind" factor. Will it make the mechanic more enjoyable to use, particularly if you're in the lead? Yes. But it does so at the detriment of the game design, is my gut feeling.

Lochlann · Sep 24, 2013

CaptainPatch said:
The whole concept of Difficulty settings is that the higher you go, the more challenging things become, right? One would think that by using a lower Difficulty settings, it would be _easier_ to accomplish the various tasks. More money rolling in, weaker opponents on the battlefield, stealing tech happens faster with lower chances of losing spies, etc.

Measuring the strengths and weaknesses of a game assumes a certain amount of consistency, no matter what Difficulty setting is used. But from what people have been saying here, the Espionage mechanics are VERY different between lower Difficulty settings than it is for higher Difficulty settings. Oddly, as it has been described, it's _easier_ to steal tech at the higher setting! That's directly opposite from what intuition suggests.

Patch, man, this is turning into a broken record. There have been numerous clear and simple answers to exactly the things you keep asking, spelling out why stealing is "harder" on lower difficulty levels. Yet you keep repeating the same thing over and over: that it doesn't make sense, that stealing is harder on easier levels, that it's counterintuitive, etc. We're here spelling it out for you, but you seem intent on ignoring it.

I'll try to simplify it. Easier difficulty level = greater player advantage = fewer AI beakers = less to steal = slimmer pickings -- tech-wise, but more importantly, beaker-wise. This equates to a "harder time" stealing on lower difficulties. There is nothing counterintuitive about this.

There is also nothing counterintuitive about the common-sense rationale, which has also been pointed out multiple times. Tech-stealing is, by design, most beneficial to those who are behind and need to catch up in the tech race. Therefore it is least beneficial to those who are in the lead, and who don't need to use it to catch up.

Why are you still confused? The game mechanics and the system rationale are in agreement. You seem intent on raging about this one extreme instance of tech-stealing not working, while ignoring everyone's explanations that tech-stealing shouldn't work in this instance. As well as ignoring everyone's clear descriptions of how, when, and why it should work. There's not much more that can be said, or that needs to be said.

Gort · Sep 24, 2013

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with a 100% chance to steal a tech in 100 turns becoming a 10% chance to steal a tech every 10 turns.

Or you stealing a set number of beakers each turn or something with a percentage chance to get caught or expelled every so often.

I also don't like that it's just as easy to steal a 2,000 beaker tech as it is to steal a 200 beaker tech!

Just because espionage is not "pathetic" doesn't mean I wouldn't mind seeing it get a bit of improvement.

Espionage is pathetic

CaptainPatch

Lifelong gamer

isau

Deity

Yzman

Deity

Arachnofiend

Perturbed Pugilist

CaptainPatch

Lifelong gamer

isau

Deity

Yzman

Deity

CaptainPatch

Lifelong gamer

Wodan

Deity

Lochlann

Warlord

Gort

Emperor

Similar threads