A feature I actually would like to see removed

[ziegenpeter]

Good day fellow EB-Fans!
When playing yesterday I stumbled over a feature, which is new compared to vanille (haven't played it in decades!), but which is actually rather annoying to me than enhancing the density of the gaming experience.
Its about how Agents gain their experience. I mean if there are buildings in a town, serving to educate and train an agent, why would a ruler drag his assasin in spe away from his book about lethal poisons and say: "Come on, you'll figure it out somehow, its learning by doing. And if not... uh your kind is very cheap to recuit. Nevermind."

So are there any plans to handle this differently? Is there a way to exclude this feature from EBI?
Thankyou !

[anubis88]

Good day fellow EB-Fans!
When playing yesterday I stumbled over a feature, which is new compared to vanille (haven't played it in decades!), but which is actually rather annoying to me than enhancing the density of the gaming experience.
Its about how Agents gain their experience. I mean if there are buildings in a town, serving to educate and train an agent, why would a ruler drag his assasin in spe away from his book about lethal poisons and say: "Come on, you'll figure it out somehow, its learning by doing. And if not... uh your kind is very cheap to recuit. Nevermind."

So are there any plans to handle this differently? Is there a way to exclude this feature from EBI?
Thankyou !

IMHO learning by doing is ok. I mean there are scenarios which can't be foreseen in basic training of an assasin (if such even existed) and if a succesfull murder was attempted, the man himself would learn very much.
Such experience could be used in the next kills ( roleplaying wise - how to enter a prior unknown building without being seen, how you must act to be trusted by different kind of presons etc...)

[bobbin]

I don't really see what the problem is, are you saying you want spies and assassins to reach the maximum level through just training? IMHO that isn't realistic at all, as with anything there is only so much you learn through study, after that it is the application of that knowledge that allows you to progress further.

[ziegenpeter]

No, of course not maximum level. But they should (IMHO) start with the level they'd have after being "trained". And then of course they need to do some jobs and get their hands dirty for the final improvements

[B-Wing]

Not too sure what the OP is specifically suggesting either, but I think it would at least be good to have certain buildings increase the starting skill of spies and assassins, similar to the way their respective guilds work in M2TW. Not real sure what the guild system is going to be used for in EB2, but I'm pretty sure any building can be modded to increase agent experience in a region. Maybe there could be an optional line of buildings designed specifically for training agents which could do this, rather than relying on guilds and/or higher level markets.

And on the topic of changing things about assassins, I'd really like for them to stop losing experience when they fail a mission. Realistically, I'd expect them to learn from their mistakes, assuming they survive a failed mission in the first place. That may seem like a stretch in terms of gameplay, but I certainly don't think they should LOSE experience for receiving a bad dice roll.

[Ludens]

I don't really see what the problem is, are you saying you want spies and assassins to reach the maximum level through just training? IMHO that isn't realistic at all, as with anything there is only so much you learn through study, after that it is the application of that knowledge that allows you to progress further.

To explain the mechanism ziegenpeter is referring too: in EB diplomats, spies and assassins start out with the "untrained" trait. You need to have them stay in a city with an academy (for diplomats) or a level 3 market (for spies / assassins) for some turns to "train" them. They will also become trained when they accomplish a mission or two. What ziegenpeter is asking for is to make them start out as "trained". This will cut down on tedious micromanagement.

[Cyclops]

The spy agents are an interesting feature of TW games. Do we need them at all?

Spying is definitely a part of many warfare traditions: I'm re-reading Sun Tzu (in the exciting new version wity the extra baloney chapters they found in 1973) and he makes a strong point about using intelligence. In particular he seems to stress using local intelligence ie bribe farmers etc.

When I march a diplomat next to a city he gives me a bit of a look inside (not a very good one), likewise when I march an army: if I double click for the AI focre/city composition scroll it says "spotted by..." agent name, FM or watchtower. Do different units appart from spies have greater chances to spot enemies? I know FMs have a bigger LOS (pool of sight? circle of vision?) than diplomats.

Maybe that would give a denser FOW feel if we ditched spies? I have to say I feel like I have some kind of satelitte veiw when I campaign atm, there's none of the tension of marching into the unknown which pretty much every military history I read depicts. If there were no spys I guess I'd use scouting units like cav or skirmishers as a vanguard to prevent the main army from being mauled by ambush.

I guess the game is too high level to represent ambushes, unexpected reinforcements and other FOW surprises in great detail, and it'd be boring inching around the map with units cycling out from the main stack on patrol etc.

If I want the FOW feeling I'll just use spies exclusively for homeland security and unrest-causing missions: thats a function I love. I dunno if we see it in our ancient sources much but the idea of meddling with a foe even if you're not at war catches my fancy and I am sure it happened.

[anubis88]

I agree with your post Cyclops.
I believe that the spies see just too much. There is no "unknown" feeling, and there should defintely be one. It sucks that when i go where no man has gone before ( in my recent Parthia campaign in Arabia) and all i needed was a spy, and i saw every enemy army, the terrain, their forces etc...

It would be great, if there was a feature in the TW games that didn't even let you see the whole map!
Kinda of a Age of Empires feel, when you had to take a scout to find the borders of the map. Here of course one would know how the EB map looked, but not precisly.

Imagine, you would lead a Roman legion in to the north, where you knew there were some barbaric tribes, but suddenly you would find yourself in a forest, and a hugely garrisoned city just waiting for you to kick your ass.

However if this is not possible, it would be still nice imho to reduce the line of sight of every single unit in the game. The watchtower line of sight in EB is just huge. I mean i know i live in a small country, but now i have a spy and a watchtower in the balkans, and i can practicaly see from Pella to Patavium. That's a bit far isn't it?

[Blxz]

To explain the mechanism ziegenpeter is referring too: in EB diplomats, spies and assassins start out with the "untrained" trait. You need to have them stay in a city with an academy (for diplomats) or a level 3 market (for spies / assassins) for some turns to "train" them. They will also become trained when they accomplish a mission or two. What ziegenpeter is asking for is to make them start out as "trained". This will cut down on tedious micromanagement.

I actually agree with what he has to say, in a way. Why would you recruit a spy from your settlement who has been training to be a spy. But then actually leave him in the settlement to train MORE and get to the 'trained' level. What I think is that either remove the ability to get that from a settlement or remove the trait entirerly. No reason to hire someone who is only half trained and then train them more. It doesn't make sense from the employers point of view. If they start as 'untrained' then fine, but they should ONLY be able to get more experience in the field. They have already reached the best the can in the settlement, thats why they have a job now.

[Cute Wolf]

Maybe we doesn't have to remove that trait entirely, just give some chance that we could sometimes become "unlucky"... hiring an untrained agent, and the bueraucracy can't fire him....