ToranagaSama
07-04-2003, 11:35
Whadday think about this, below is some incomplete, unproofed and roughly formatted thoughts I jotted down awhile ago, and was inspired as an, unposted, response to WesW over in the Dungeon. Comments by ArseClown in the "Provocatuer" thread has caused me to post as is.
I had planned to clean it up, flesh it out and make it into a discussion thread, but haven't gotten around to it. So some fill-in-the-blanks might be necessary for comprehension.
The whole issue has to do with "Spying" IMUHO, the capability to spy is too cheap and too easily done. In the real world spying is costly and is "strategic" in nature.
Conversely and unrealistically, in Total War, spying is incredibly cheap and is utilized "tactically" rather than strategically. I believe strongly that this is an incorrect approach and the game would be better served with a reversal of thought.
The Crux of the matter is that, presently, it is too easy/cheap to spy out the composition of an enemy army. This allows for the player to build a "counter" army. Rarely will a seasoned player be "surprised" by the composition of the enemy's army.
Example, use spy capability to note that the enemy has an army composed primarily of Archers and Cavalry. Player builds counter army of Cavalry and Spears, respectively.
Without the capability to Spy and "know" the enemy composition, the player would "need" to build balanced armies. Also, a prudent player would find himself rather hesistant to attack an "unknown" foe.
Example, the player can see a full stack of AI troops on the Strat Map, but has no clue what kind of troops its composed of. Should the player attack? Should the player attack with his half stack? Should the player wait and attack with a full stack? Knowing or not knowing the AI composition can make all the difference in the world toward a successful attack.
Spying, obviously, is of SUPREME importance, yet in Total War its cheaper than a throw-away peasant unit This is an inbalance that needs correcting.
First, Border Forts and Watch Towers serve essentially the same function, that is to "spy" across borders. In addition, Watch Towers also serve as spy "catchers". The "spying/offensive" capabilites of the two buildings are redundant. I believe the spying and spy-catching functions s/b separated. Spying is an Offensive function and spy-catching is a Defensive function.
Consequently, Border Forts s/b solely used to offensively "spy" across a border, while Watch Towers s/b solely used to defensively "catch" spies. In other words, each building s/b separate and independent of each other with neither being a prerequisite for the other; and each serving separately distinct functions.
Spies and most "spy" units are cheaper than a throw-away peasant unit, and have no maintenance costs. Yet, these units are almost useless to their generic function of spying. How long does a Spy last when the unit is actually used to spy? Not very long at all, a turn or two at best. This doesn't make sense and is the result of Watch Towers and Spy units (used as "counter"-spy units to catch spies) priced ridiculously CHEAPLY.
Count the Emmisary unit as a "spy" unit, as it also allows one to "see" the composition of an enemy army; and its cheap to build and easy to die. Though, actually, the Emissary has a longer life expectancy than the Spy unit, as it is immune to Watch Towers. Watch Towers are a "passive" defense, but the Emmissary must be "actively" eliminated with an Assassin. The cheap cost of the Emmissary, along with its "spy" capability, and its imperviousness to Watch Towers renders the "Spy Unit" indesireable to use for its "named" purpose of Spying. Something is not right.
Consequently, the "spy" value of an Emmissary is, at least, one magnitude greater than that of an actual Spy unit. Something is wrong with this picture, no? Add to the picture, the fact that, if I recall correctly, the cost for each unit is equal (or at least there is no relative difference to cost in relation to the units differing functional value.) Again, an imbalance that needs correcting.
The picture gets worse, take a look at Watch Towers with regard to the above. The Watch Tower's primary purpose is toooo "catch" Spies--that's why you pay the cost for it. Yet, the above highlights that to build "Spy units" to actually spy is unnecessary and cost ineffective, as the Emmissary unit can serve as a BETTER spy with no cost penalty If the AI were a human it would not build spies to spy, consequently rendering the Watch Tower and/or its capability worthless.
[Hellooooo ECS....]
I believe Spying should be left to the Spies, negotiating matters of state s/b left to Emmissaries and neither the twaine shall meet; http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif and/or some mitigating factors should be added to each unit as differentiators, as well as commensurate cost adjustments.
So, the remaining "spy" capable units are the Assassin and Princess. My thoughts are that Assassins s/b sole purpose units with NO "spy" capabilities whatsoever.
I believe that Princesses, as is, fit within the scheme of things fairly.
Lastly, for the moment, let's talk about "counter-spying". How many times have you viewed the parchement/pop-up/whatever, stating that a Spy/Emmissary/Whatever is "counter-spying"??? Too many to count, right Sooo, ahhh, what precisely is the unit doing, and how is it effecting the game? The Spy unit can effectively effect a provinces loyalty and advise regarding disloyal general, but other than this, "counter-spying" is effectively non-existant.
There really is no literal "counter-spying". Counter-spying should involve "dis-information" in some way, no? For example, train a Spy, put him in a province next to a stack and gradually over time the counter-spying/dis-information begins. Simply, say you have a stack and drop a spy unit onto it. A parchment should pop-up presenting the option to postively or negatively effect "dis-information".
If the choice is positive, then gradually, over time, for example, a "half"-stack when viewed by the enemy will appear, increasingly like a "full"-stack. If the choice is negative, then, for example, the "half"-stack will gradually appear to the enemy as a "full"-stack. Simply put, a "Counter-Spy" might be capable or making your stack appear either 25% larger or smaller, depending upon a player's preference.
Think of the possibilities Such a capability would raise the value of Spying and the Strat Map gets a whole lot more interesting.
Well, above is just a quick attempt to add some context to the below and pretty much outlines my conceptual thought. The below is really a partially thought through manner in which some of the above concepts might be "modded" into the game.
My first desire is to present my conceptions and the communities response to CA with Rome in mind; and secondly, perhaps, to inspire a mod to MTW. I don't believe WesW was too intriuged by it all, possibly because I inadvertently hijacked his thread. Sorry bout that Wes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Unposted post below, probably the cost in Florins and Turns I suggest is best viewed in relation to WesW's mod though it doesn't matter all that much (forgive the repetiveness and keep in mind the game has several "spy" type units):
----
Below are some VERY preliminary thoughts, I quickly jotted down the other day (PRIOR to your response), on the issue of Spying. This is just to provide an outline for my view and all comments are in regard to the cost changes directly following in Ital.
The stated purpose of my proposal is to elevate "Spying" from a SIMPLE "tactical" function (historically and realistically incorrect) to a "strategic" element.
Presently, "spying" is toooo easy and toooo cheap:
Border Fort – Offensive (spy across border), 3000 florins, 12 Turns
Watch Tower – Defensive (Spy Catcher), (remember it might last almost forever) 3000 Florins, and 12 Turns.
For example, A Spy might cost 1500 Florins and take 6 Turns.
Now, what of the other “Agents”
a) Princesses: Things to consider, first is that they *Do* eventually die; second, you cannot build innumerable numbers as is present with the Spy unit; third, almost impossible to assinate.
I think we should play-test with no changes.
b) Emmissaries: They *do* live forever, but are easily assinated; you can build as many as you wish AND they are Cheap; a “Royal Palace” I believe is the building necessary to build Emissaries and that Building is not cheap. I believe its 1000 florins and at 4 Turns. In addition, if memory serves there are two prerequisite buildings required in order to build a Royal Palace. (In *my* “Hardcore Rules” campaigns it takes quite awhile to get Emissaries.)
Adjustments need to be made, BUT I don’t believe that any can be short of altering the code. The functions that Emissaries serve outside of “spying’ are too essential. I suspect that some small mitigating adjustments “might” be possible with regard to the Buildings required, but essentially Emissaries will become THE essential Spy, whenever Princesses are not available.
Lastly, it is possible to reduce the number of Emissaries introduced into the game by increasing the cost somewhat. I believe they cost a hundred florins(?). Possibly quadrupling that to 400 or even 500 florins might serve the game well; additionally there might be a way to limit their lifespan similar to Princesses.
Border Forts s/b removed as a prerequisite for Watch Towers as their elements place separate decision-making paths upon the player.
Taverns should be the prerequisite for Watch Towers AND Border Forts.
Watch Tower s/b commensurate in cost to the expense of a Spy Unit.
Spy units s/b relatively as costly as a Border Fort and Watch Towers s/b commensurately more expensive than Spy units. The aim is to obtain some useful period of “spy” time to justify the expense of a Spy, BUT not to have a Spy last forever. A Spy’s life expectancy s/b relatively short.
In this way, a Spy will have a limited useful time-span, eventually some Watch Tower will catch it; but the spread of Watch Towers will be rather slow and most likely be, at the relatively initial stages regulated to the most “strategically” important provinces.
For example, it would be wise to incur the expense and time to build a Watch Tower in your “main” troop producing provinces, particularly “Iron” province(s). In this way, it would hide from the enemy the degree to which you have (or have NOT) developed your troop producing capabilities. Whether you’ve developed the use of Iron to gain Armour and Attack bonuses.
A Spy Dying, though, would surely give suspicion that the province (and you) has something to hide. Hehe.
Of course, the all the relevant Prices and Turns, above, will, most likely, need to be adjusted/balanced, but I believe they present a good, relative, starting point to play test.
----
Just letting the mind flow:
Adding a slightly different and perhaps additional track, perhaps the use of Spies s/b more like the "Bribe" function. That is, pick up a Spy, drop him in a particular province and you get a pop-up stating the cost to "see" that province (army composition, buildings, etc.). The cost s/b commensurate to the star level of the Spy, distance the information "must" travel to reach the King, etc.
Time should also be introduced as a factor. Information flow was less than immediate. Drop a Spy one province away from the King and the information might be received relatively immediately. Yet, two provinces away would take longer to be received and 5 provinces, for example, would take quite a time.
Regarding other Agents, information from Princesses might be "free", but should take 2 to 3 times longer to be received by the King, than information from Spys.
Similarly for Emmissaries, free but with a "time" factor higher than Spys.
[BTW, I'm going to put this altogether and post to the Main Hall. With some discussion from the Forum, CA might pick some of my ideas and incorporate them into Rome.]
---
Well, I believe there a couple of small contradictions relative to my thoughts then and now. There it is, so whaddya think? The CA guys are definitely listening
I had planned to clean it up, flesh it out and make it into a discussion thread, but haven't gotten around to it. So some fill-in-the-blanks might be necessary for comprehension.
The whole issue has to do with "Spying" IMUHO, the capability to spy is too cheap and too easily done. In the real world spying is costly and is "strategic" in nature.
Conversely and unrealistically, in Total War, spying is incredibly cheap and is utilized "tactically" rather than strategically. I believe strongly that this is an incorrect approach and the game would be better served with a reversal of thought.
The Crux of the matter is that, presently, it is too easy/cheap to spy out the composition of an enemy army. This allows for the player to build a "counter" army. Rarely will a seasoned player be "surprised" by the composition of the enemy's army.
Example, use spy capability to note that the enemy has an army composed primarily of Archers and Cavalry. Player builds counter army of Cavalry and Spears, respectively.
Without the capability to Spy and "know" the enemy composition, the player would "need" to build balanced armies. Also, a prudent player would find himself rather hesistant to attack an "unknown" foe.
Example, the player can see a full stack of AI troops on the Strat Map, but has no clue what kind of troops its composed of. Should the player attack? Should the player attack with his half stack? Should the player wait and attack with a full stack? Knowing or not knowing the AI composition can make all the difference in the world toward a successful attack.
Spying, obviously, is of SUPREME importance, yet in Total War its cheaper than a throw-away peasant unit This is an inbalance that needs correcting.
First, Border Forts and Watch Towers serve essentially the same function, that is to "spy" across borders. In addition, Watch Towers also serve as spy "catchers". The "spying/offensive" capabilites of the two buildings are redundant. I believe the spying and spy-catching functions s/b separated. Spying is an Offensive function and spy-catching is a Defensive function.
Consequently, Border Forts s/b solely used to offensively "spy" across a border, while Watch Towers s/b solely used to defensively "catch" spies. In other words, each building s/b separate and independent of each other with neither being a prerequisite for the other; and each serving separately distinct functions.
Spies and most "spy" units are cheaper than a throw-away peasant unit, and have no maintenance costs. Yet, these units are almost useless to their generic function of spying. How long does a Spy last when the unit is actually used to spy? Not very long at all, a turn or two at best. This doesn't make sense and is the result of Watch Towers and Spy units (used as "counter"-spy units to catch spies) priced ridiculously CHEAPLY.
Count the Emmisary unit as a "spy" unit, as it also allows one to "see" the composition of an enemy army; and its cheap to build and easy to die. Though, actually, the Emissary has a longer life expectancy than the Spy unit, as it is immune to Watch Towers. Watch Towers are a "passive" defense, but the Emmissary must be "actively" eliminated with an Assassin. The cheap cost of the Emmissary, along with its "spy" capability, and its imperviousness to Watch Towers renders the "Spy Unit" indesireable to use for its "named" purpose of Spying. Something is not right.
Consequently, the "spy" value of an Emmissary is, at least, one magnitude greater than that of an actual Spy unit. Something is wrong with this picture, no? Add to the picture, the fact that, if I recall correctly, the cost for each unit is equal (or at least there is no relative difference to cost in relation to the units differing functional value.) Again, an imbalance that needs correcting.
The picture gets worse, take a look at Watch Towers with regard to the above. The Watch Tower's primary purpose is toooo "catch" Spies--that's why you pay the cost for it. Yet, the above highlights that to build "Spy units" to actually spy is unnecessary and cost ineffective, as the Emmissary unit can serve as a BETTER spy with no cost penalty If the AI were a human it would not build spies to spy, consequently rendering the Watch Tower and/or its capability worthless.
[Hellooooo ECS....]
I believe Spying should be left to the Spies, negotiating matters of state s/b left to Emmissaries and neither the twaine shall meet; http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif and/or some mitigating factors should be added to each unit as differentiators, as well as commensurate cost adjustments.
So, the remaining "spy" capable units are the Assassin and Princess. My thoughts are that Assassins s/b sole purpose units with NO "spy" capabilities whatsoever.
I believe that Princesses, as is, fit within the scheme of things fairly.
Lastly, for the moment, let's talk about "counter-spying". How many times have you viewed the parchement/pop-up/whatever, stating that a Spy/Emmissary/Whatever is "counter-spying"??? Too many to count, right Sooo, ahhh, what precisely is the unit doing, and how is it effecting the game? The Spy unit can effectively effect a provinces loyalty and advise regarding disloyal general, but other than this, "counter-spying" is effectively non-existant.
There really is no literal "counter-spying". Counter-spying should involve "dis-information" in some way, no? For example, train a Spy, put him in a province next to a stack and gradually over time the counter-spying/dis-information begins. Simply, say you have a stack and drop a spy unit onto it. A parchment should pop-up presenting the option to postively or negatively effect "dis-information".
If the choice is positive, then gradually, over time, for example, a "half"-stack when viewed by the enemy will appear, increasingly like a "full"-stack. If the choice is negative, then, for example, the "half"-stack will gradually appear to the enemy as a "full"-stack. Simply put, a "Counter-Spy" might be capable or making your stack appear either 25% larger or smaller, depending upon a player's preference.
Think of the possibilities Such a capability would raise the value of Spying and the Strat Map gets a whole lot more interesting.
Well, above is just a quick attempt to add some context to the below and pretty much outlines my conceptual thought. The below is really a partially thought through manner in which some of the above concepts might be "modded" into the game.
My first desire is to present my conceptions and the communities response to CA with Rome in mind; and secondly, perhaps, to inspire a mod to MTW. I don't believe WesW was too intriuged by it all, possibly because I inadvertently hijacked his thread. Sorry bout that Wes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Unposted post below, probably the cost in Florins and Turns I suggest is best viewed in relation to WesW's mod though it doesn't matter all that much (forgive the repetiveness and keep in mind the game has several "spy" type units):
----
Below are some VERY preliminary thoughts, I quickly jotted down the other day (PRIOR to your response), on the issue of Spying. This is just to provide an outline for my view and all comments are in regard to the cost changes directly following in Ital.
The stated purpose of my proposal is to elevate "Spying" from a SIMPLE "tactical" function (historically and realistically incorrect) to a "strategic" element.
Presently, "spying" is toooo easy and toooo cheap:
Border Fort – Offensive (spy across border), 3000 florins, 12 Turns
Watch Tower – Defensive (Spy Catcher), (remember it might last almost forever) 3000 Florins, and 12 Turns.
For example, A Spy might cost 1500 Florins and take 6 Turns.
Now, what of the other “Agents”
a) Princesses: Things to consider, first is that they *Do* eventually die; second, you cannot build innumerable numbers as is present with the Spy unit; third, almost impossible to assinate.
I think we should play-test with no changes.
b) Emmissaries: They *do* live forever, but are easily assinated; you can build as many as you wish AND they are Cheap; a “Royal Palace” I believe is the building necessary to build Emissaries and that Building is not cheap. I believe its 1000 florins and at 4 Turns. In addition, if memory serves there are two prerequisite buildings required in order to build a Royal Palace. (In *my* “Hardcore Rules” campaigns it takes quite awhile to get Emissaries.)
Adjustments need to be made, BUT I don’t believe that any can be short of altering the code. The functions that Emissaries serve outside of “spying’ are too essential. I suspect that some small mitigating adjustments “might” be possible with regard to the Buildings required, but essentially Emissaries will become THE essential Spy, whenever Princesses are not available.
Lastly, it is possible to reduce the number of Emissaries introduced into the game by increasing the cost somewhat. I believe they cost a hundred florins(?). Possibly quadrupling that to 400 or even 500 florins might serve the game well; additionally there might be a way to limit their lifespan similar to Princesses.
Border Forts s/b removed as a prerequisite for Watch Towers as their elements place separate decision-making paths upon the player.
Taverns should be the prerequisite for Watch Towers AND Border Forts.
Watch Tower s/b commensurate in cost to the expense of a Spy Unit.
Spy units s/b relatively as costly as a Border Fort and Watch Towers s/b commensurately more expensive than Spy units. The aim is to obtain some useful period of “spy” time to justify the expense of a Spy, BUT not to have a Spy last forever. A Spy’s life expectancy s/b relatively short.
In this way, a Spy will have a limited useful time-span, eventually some Watch Tower will catch it; but the spread of Watch Towers will be rather slow and most likely be, at the relatively initial stages regulated to the most “strategically” important provinces.
For example, it would be wise to incur the expense and time to build a Watch Tower in your “main” troop producing provinces, particularly “Iron” province(s). In this way, it would hide from the enemy the degree to which you have (or have NOT) developed your troop producing capabilities. Whether you’ve developed the use of Iron to gain Armour and Attack bonuses.
A Spy Dying, though, would surely give suspicion that the province (and you) has something to hide. Hehe.
Of course, the all the relevant Prices and Turns, above, will, most likely, need to be adjusted/balanced, but I believe they present a good, relative, starting point to play test.
----
Just letting the mind flow:
Adding a slightly different and perhaps additional track, perhaps the use of Spies s/b more like the "Bribe" function. That is, pick up a Spy, drop him in a particular province and you get a pop-up stating the cost to "see" that province (army composition, buildings, etc.). The cost s/b commensurate to the star level of the Spy, distance the information "must" travel to reach the King, etc.
Time should also be introduced as a factor. Information flow was less than immediate. Drop a Spy one province away from the King and the information might be received relatively immediately. Yet, two provinces away would take longer to be received and 5 provinces, for example, would take quite a time.
Regarding other Agents, information from Princesses might be "free", but should take 2 to 3 times longer to be received by the King, than information from Spys.
Similarly for Emmissaries, free but with a "time" factor higher than Spys.
[BTW, I'm going to put this altogether and post to the Main Hall. With some discussion from the Forum, CA might pick some of my ideas and incorporate them into Rome.]
---
Well, I believe there a couple of small contradictions relative to my thoughts then and now. There it is, so whaddya think? The CA guys are definitely listening