No more hidden units?

[Dancing Hoskuld]

No offense to everyone that doesn't like the units that do this, but isn't that the REAL main purpose of them? If you KNOW where the Assassin/Ambusher is, doesnt that DEFEAT the purpose of the unit?? I mean the American CIA is full of spies all over the world, they are the one's that LOOK like everyone in that country they are in, and causing and uproar, just to get to the main purpose of doing what the US wants to begin with. How do you think Noriega of Panama, etc made it into power?? They were actually CIA agents to begin with, who do you think trained Osama Bin Laden. You have to have espionage just like in the cold war, when Russia sent their spies here to live as American, and some still lived here and NEVER activated. Infact there is an American TV show now about the Russian infiltrators/spies its called "The Americans." Spies living in America. Cant see them, dont know who they are, where they live, so i think you'd kinda call that Invisible/Hidden Nationality, HUH??

Spies are not thieves/ambushers. You are confusing the two types of unit here.

 

[c0pr4x]

For my information... do you plan to modify/add option to see hidden units (Nationality and invisible) for the next version (29)?

 

[Thunderbrd]

No. It's on the list of tasks and goals but it's not going to make it into this version sorry.

 

[c0pr4x]

No problemo! Thanks for the fast anwser!

 

[SilentConfusion]

My two cents after playing for a short time already:

It is indeed annoying when out of nowhere an invisible unit attacks and kills someone of your and retreats behind someone else's borders. I love being annoyed in this way because it makes the game more interesting. I think this is quite fun development and also not unrealistic. Bandits attack my caravan and retreat across the borders of a rival land. That rival land does not want my troops coming in to kill anyone, regardless of what they've done. I have no recourse except to better protect vulnerable units and accept that some losses may happen. I also like the ability to do the same to others.

 

[Yudishtira]

My two cents after playing for a short time already:

It is indeed annoying when out of nowhere an invisible unit attacks and kills someone of your and retreats behind someone else's borders. I love being annoyed in this way because it makes the game more interesting. I think this is quite fun development and also not unrealistic. Bandits attack my caravan and retreat across the borders of a rival land. That rival land does not want my troops coming in to kill anyone, regardless of what they've done. I have no recourse except to better protect vulnerable units and accept that some losses may happen. I also like the ability to do the same to others.

So you're talking about a third-party civ who you don't have Open Borders with? Why not open borders with them? I'm fairly sure you can then enter their territory to kill Hidden Nationality units - and enemy units in general - no matter who they belong to.

This way you might love it even more...

 

[SilentConfusion]

I was thinking that if they retreated into the borders of a civ who wouldn't give you OB (either the Civ who owns the units or a third party), perhaps because they don't like you, that you wouldn't be able to attack them without going to war with the civ who is harboring them. And yeah I guess I was mixing up hidden nationality and invisible units.

 

[Maxima7]

They were actually CIA agents to begin with, who do you think trained Osama Bin Laden.

That's not substantiated. They were funding and arming the indigenous Afghan mujahideen, not the Afghan Arabs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_–_al-Qaeda_controversy

http://factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/

 

[Thunderbrd]

That's not substantiated. They were funding and arming the indigenous Afghan mujahideen, not the Afghan Arabs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_–_al-Qaeda_controversy

http://factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/

For a moment, put down the 'evidence' which is basically all propaganda on both sides of the fence and consider this:

What's more likely: That a prominent and influential member of the Saudi family suddenly decides he hates America and everything it stands for on the basis of his religion and arranges a pathetic strike against us that, due to being such a shocking, out of the blue wounding that it generates enormous anger at he and his people from the most powerful nation in the world, gaining no real benefit, even to make a point to the majority of the world.

OR

Democratic leaders recognize the need to take and command the most critical strategic regions in the world in preparation for what can easily be seen to be a long term growing tension between the strongest powers in the world, setting up a position where they can quickly respond to new and emerging nuclear threats from somewhat unstable regions, and capturing and commanding a huge supply of what is currently the most critical resource in the world where the power to wage war is concerned all in the same move.

But they can't easily convince a peaceful public to go to war to achieve these critical goals that may make the long term difference between peace and survival or war and destruction because people don't have the long term strategic outlook on global matters like the leaders do and are more concerned that their government operates on the grounds of 'moral right' than they are about making sure they are absolutely secure from what could be seen to be inevitable threats on the distant horizon.

Unable to explain these foreseen critical strategic dangers to the people without creating an even bigger problem on the world stage, a plan is set into action that will make it appear to those people, a decade or two after the planning is determined, that the nation has come under attack and that demands an invasionary re-action on the behalf of that nation's military (which just so happens to achieve all the mentioned goals in the process.)

When looking at just these factors, what do YOU think is really more feasible?

 

[strategyonly]

Cant find the thread where a person asked if there are anymore Thief's or Rogue around, well here is infact a "screenie" of Rogue around in late Classical Era yet!!!