Spyder's web

Spies are the best means to keep a province loyal (being much cheaper than garrisoning the province with an army but as much efficient). One more use of the spies the manual speaks of is sending them worming into a besieged castle to open the gate and deliver it to the besiegers. But, to my mind, this function is useless. I mean, I see the main objective of the besiegers avoiding casualties as much as possible while trying to get hold of the castle. But if the besieged garrison is quite large, it is likely to hold out only for a year (two as a maximum), so you will get the castle with minimal casualties by just sitting and waiting. If it is so small to be able to survive the siege for 4 years or more, you can storm the castle again with minimal (though more palpable than in the first case) losses. So why use the spy? It will take him so long to get his job done (that is if he ever does it) that you can do without his help; thus, saving manpower is insignificant. Does anyone use the spies despite this logics?

Hmm, I consider spies as one of the most valuable agent pieces on the map. As you said, they are great in keeping the loyalty high, excellent in catching enemy spies/assassins and gaining valour... Obviously, the Byzantines are just perfect for me because they use a discount of this agent. :p If you play with the Byzantines in High/Late, for example you will see at least several advantages. In late, the old books say, destroy the Turks. Okay, but you need to take Trebizond, right to reach Rum + an archer unit won't harm. Two options: move a small but strogn enough cavalry force of 2-3 units (don't advise lead of the Emperor) to make the enemy accept a battle and then try to capture/kill all of the defenders. The other option (or if you fail to achieve the first) is sending a bigger force and starting a siege. With a siege, there is a loyalty drop so it's perfect to hire a spy to keep the loyalty until the siege is over. Once Trebizond is in your hands, you move to destroy the Turks. Here, you often beat them and they barricade behind the Citadel. You have a Bombard and not so many troops, so what assault? Possibly, but better try with a spy. Chances for success are often good and managed to finish off a whole faction with a spy and get many building intact. Just an example

And then what? Start a war with the Italians/French for Crete when you can avoid it? I often end with a land campaign but sometimes... well, it's fun to make several revolts on the islands to valour up your spies...

They are useful, very useful. :evilgrin: I would say it's the unit I've mastered most. I am not really good with the assassins (a bit more micromanagement is needed) and moderately good in using the emissaries and the clerics.

P.S. I don't dare to use the framing for treason trait much since I use other ways to improve my generals loyalty...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince Cobra

well, it's fun to make several revolts on the islands to valour up your spies...

---

Well, in my experience, if they spies are placed in other faction's province they get caught in 95% of cases, so its a waste of money trying to foment rebellions.

You gotta use them carefully and target provinces without border forts. Many people here have edited out border forts anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I of the Storm

Many people here have edited out border forts anyway.

---

I think I of the Storm is right on target here. I edited out watchtowers and boarder forts because I was tired of spies being not so useful. I then discovered that they were too good (for my tastes anyway) and put the watchtowers and boarder forts back in. The way I see it, the AI doesn't know how to use spies properly, so editing out the WT/BFs gives the player too much advantage, or at least requires that spies be used with restraint. But if you do want to get the best out of spies, then getting rid of those buildings really helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

I think I of the Storm is right on target here. I edited out watchtowers and boarder forts because I was tired of spies being not so useful. I then discovered that they were too good (for my tastes anyway) and put the watchtowers and boarder forts back in. The way I see it, the AI doesn't know how to use spies properly, so editing out the WT/BFs gives the player too much advantage, or at least requires that spies be used with restraint. But if you do want to get the best out of spies, then getting rid of those buildings really helps.

---

That's exactly right. The border forts are a means to protect teh AI in vanilla and if not present he is at the mercy of the player that is using much better and consistently his spies. This is also the reason why i left the borderforts in the Caravel mod. However, it is true that the agent game is far more enhanced without them. So its "having fun" having a free hand to beating the AI versus "having fun" by not being able to have a free hand beating the AI :) A tough dillema.

By the way if you have modded out the BFs in vanilla you doubly hurt the AI as he gets a +30 happiness that he can't make up from other buildings there and so he is much less stable without them, unless you relegate the bonus to some other early building (say town watch or the fort etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Girlandir

I mean, I see the main objective of the besiegers avoiding casualties as much as possible while trying to get hold of the castle.

---

Not always though. Sometimes the most important objective is gaining the castle asap in a strategic location either tech wise or economically so you can start using it your self. Hence there are cases when assault is actually worth the cost in blood for the prize.

EDIT:
This is especially so when rushing an opponent that has a relatively low level castles that can be assaulted with minor casualties or if you are rushing an opponent with relatively high level castles but have brought siege engines to help you bypass the walls in the assault.

Generally speaking when assaulting, the best is to time the assault to happen from multiple directions so that you can sandwitch the besieged quickly. A bit of heavy cavalry charging in can be very useful in that context. Dispatching of besieged quickly is paramount as the longer you fight frontally, the more they will last and you will receive casualties from towers and artillery.

You need watchtowers or the AI will rarely attack due to lack of "intel". The AI requires this as it needs to check your armies against it's own when calculating as to whether to invade or not.

It's a double edged sword. One approach is to put watchtowers in every province from the start by editing the startpos file and remove border forts from the game altogether. You will then have a greater number of AI spies and assassins running about. The AI does not know how to avoid border forts and loses most of it's agents to them so this seems like a good idea.

This introduces another problem however in that it makes the AI a very easy target for your assassins and spies. In essence agreeing with what gollum has stated above. I would argue that instead of the border forts being the misfit it is in fact the spies that are the problem.

The AI is quite simply unable to use spies effectively. Firstly it cannot do the orchestrate treason plot, reveal vices or open the gates missions. The AI also moves spies around (entering border fort provinces) or leaves them in useless locations - it never coordinates them properly. Spies are in fact a massive exploit for the player and if you want a fairer game, remove them altogether and leave only the assassins which the AI can use quite effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

I would argue that instead of the border forts being the misfit it is in fact the spies that are the problem.

---

An interesting perspective. In the Caravel mod i left the spies in (and the BFs of course as mentioned) in order to retain the vanilla flavor of playing with them, while protecting the AI sufficiently via the BFs, but taking the spies out could be something to try out in my own Caravel Mod mod :)

What if you are playing a Viking era campaign? Spies are really useful if you want rapid expansion, which is quite important for the Welsh early on, for example. Also, the AI tends to put up boarder forts or at least watchtowers, limiting the offensive use of your spies, IIRC. I think that the balance is not too bad in Viking era, though I wonder if the AI would make more effective offensives if it used spies to help hold down conquered territory.

In the latest VI campaign i played as the Scotts. I was able to train spies after i had reached the bottom (wessex) and eradicated in order teh Picts, teh Northumbrians, the Mercians, teh Saxons and Welsh and was preparing to invade all Irish provinces at once to kill them off. It took something like 60-70 turns with good rushing.

You can expand very quickly without agents too. Just after you become really big need to watch out where your leader is. Also need to build the early happy buildings fast.

In the main campaign this is not always possible due to religious/cultural differences and the Pope.

That's not at all how I remember it Gollum. Viking era spies are not hard to tech up to IIRC, and I don't see why you couldn't get them before you reached Wessex, unless you just wanted to spend your money on something else. Viking era provinces tend to be rebellious until you've held them a while, so spies are handy, but not essential of course.

I did not find spies as useful in early/high/late for improving loyalty really. Peasants are available everywhere there's a fort, and so cheap that the upkeep doesn't matter too much. Just find something to do with them after they are not needed in their current province, such as garrisoning a different province. That way you do not have to train too many. Since peasants offer a reasonable alternative to spies, I would use peasants so I could put other things in my castles' build queque, like teched up troops that neither spies nor peasants can replace. Not that this is an option once I started playing without peasants, but when you've got a mod, it all depends on how its modded.

Substituting peasants for spies is less attractive in Viking era, because peasants require their own special building that ties up your building queue anyway, so you might as well go all the way and tech up to a spy building. Also, a spy in Jutland is a handy way to keep the Vikings out of your hair, though not essential of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

unless you just wanted to spend your money on something else.

---

I hadn;t modded the game in that campaign BB.

Yep, i've spent them monies on a steady stream of troops to keep rushing the other factions :) In general for a good rush you need to balance between making more troops to feed the attacks (which is the priority investment), and teching up to get better troops so the attacks won't stall if you meet a faction that has been teching up all the while (as it will eventually happen with the Saxons and perhaps teh Mercians).

Everything else is secondary. You can sidetrack agents completely if the momentum and speed are to be maintained, and also build boats only to the point they protect your troop-making shores and shorten the distances to the front lines; you can also relatively ignore economic buildings too except for a very few selected provinces in your core lands (the richest) with good governors, as conquering new land both adds to your income (even with lower taxes) but most importantly takes from teh income of your foes.

Peasants i do not bother with at all in general - only in very few cases as garrisons. With the Scotts you have the perfect rushing/garrison unit - the Highlanders: dirt cheap to build and maintain and also pretty competent for that money on the field. Building them in large quntities in a steady production stream does the trick.

While spies were certainly useful once i got big of course, equally useful as the spies were the brothels that made them, that i did in every province i could. Iirc they have a happiness bonus, and also of course can make the spies that contribute to the same for provinces. of course all early happy buildings (shrine, watchtowers etc) were also built everywhere (to allow me to keep attacking).

Edit: With the Picts and the Scotts, i use rushing strategies big time for two reasons; one is that once you have taken with one the other (the Picts as the Scotts or the Scotts as the Picts), you are on a bottleneck and so the geography favors concentration of troops and hence attacking. The other of course is that the southern factions are both rich and can get tech wise pretty good (Huscarles etc), and so the sooner i take out their high tech troop centers and wealth the better.
A similar logic - although more hazardous due to lack of bottleneck) applies to teh Welsh, unless one takes on Ireland first.

In other words you used the clansmen as a substitute for peasants to garrison. Well, its certainly a viable option. However, I would say that spies can actually help your rush attack. Every clansmen unit that you hold back for garrison duty is temporarily removed from the rush. Put spies in newly aquired provinces and move them forward as your boarders move forward and you avoid that. I'm not really enough of a numbers man or a Viking era player to say which way works better. Maybe using spies a lot only looked better to me because I felt like doing it that way.

Thank you for the suggestion BB, i'll certainly try it next time :bow:

BB, i tried your suggestion out and here's my thoughts:
aiming for spies as the Scotts or Picts slows down considerably the rushing flow if you aim for them too early; this is because you divert resources and time from making troops and boats to tech up and make spies early-on that resources are limited and so your rate of early expansion is slower than it otherwise could be.

Of course once you start the ruh you can move slightly quicker as you say, yet, the early time lost finds the Mercians and the Saxons more advanced and powerful than it would otherwise.

Perhaps it may be worth it to go for it as the Welsh that start with a fort (or was it keep?) in Wales and hence it takes less time and resources for them to get them.

Rushing as the Scotts/Picts/Welsh i make use of Clansmen/Celts as much as possible. I garrison newly acquired provinces and put taxes at lowest for the first few turns and build the early happy buildings aiming to release the garrisons asap to go to teh front line and keep attacking. While the Celt warriors cost a little bit more than the clansmen and they are slightly less suitable, they are als more in number and hence they somewhat make up for it. Clansmen are just too good and too cheap hence perfect for rush.

Of course there are other strategies and approaches than a straight all out head on attack :bow:

Spies are also good at informing on the generals that have a mind for rebellion. But I wonder, do they only warn you of what is brewing, or are they able to keep the loyalty of the generals high enough to prevent a rebellion? Or do they have an influence on the loyalty of the province only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Spies are also good at informing on the generals that have a mind for rebellion. But I wonder, do they only warn you of what is brewing, or are they able to keep the loyalty of the generals high enough to prevent a rebellion? Or do they have an influence on the loyalty of the province only?

---

I think they influence the loyalty of all generals only after a successful or failed trial for treason.

Spies only affect the loyalty of the province, not the loyalty of generals. Failed treason plots have no effect apart from giving the general vices that can make him harder to get rid of - more resistant to spies. Successful treason plots apparently raise loyalty of all generals - though I can't say I've noticed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

BB, i tried your suggestion out and here's my thoughts:
aiming for spies as the Scotts or Picts slows down considerably the rushing flow if you aim for them too early; this is because you divert resources and time from making troops and boats to tech up and make spies early-on that resources are limited and so your rate of early expansion is slower than it otherwise could be.

Of course once you start the ruh you can move slightly quicker as you say, yet, the early time lost finds the Mercians and the Saxons more advanced and powerful than it would otherwise.

Perhaps it may be worth it to go for it as the Welsh that start with a fort (or was it keep?) in Wales and hence it takes less time and resources for them to get them.

Rushing as the Scotts/Picts/Welsh i make use of Clansmen/Celts as much as possible. I garrison newly acquired provinces and put taxes at lowest for the first few turns and build the early happy buildings aiming to release the garrisons asap to go to teh front line and keep attacking. While the Celt warriors cost a little bit more than the clansmen and they are slightly less suitable, they are als more in number and hence they somewhat make up for it. Clansmen are just too good and too cheap hence perfect for rush.

Of course there are other strategies and approaches than a straight all out head on attack :bow:

---

Interesting. If I get the time for it I would like to benefit from your advice, but I usually play STW or RTW these days. Don't know when I will finally get back to MTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

Spies only affect the loyalty of the province, not the loyalty of generals. Failed treason plots have no effect apart from giving the general vices that can make him harder to get rid of - more resistant to spies. Successful treason plots apparently raise loyalty of all generals - though I can't say I've noticed it.

---

Sigh.... You are hardly in a position to begin correct others here Caravel, or to declare what is accurate and not – considering that your own information here is flawed and untrue. So, who shall correct you - the eager corrector? ...This time around it will be me (again).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

Spies only affect the loyalty of the province, not the loyalty of generals.

---

False…. Spies affect the loyalty of target-generals due to failed treason-trials. Per each attempted and failed trial: -1 Loyalty as a result… And then there is the vices too….


Vices gained:
===========

1 attempted & failed trial: “Informants”, -0 loyalty…. +2 vs. spies
2 attempted & failed trials: “Informant network”, -1 loyalty…. +4 vs. spies
3 attempted & failed trials: “Spy Network”, -2 loyalty…. +4 vs. spies
4 attempted & failed trials: “Spy Network”, -3 loyalty…. +4 vs. spies
5 attempted & failed trials: “Secret Assassinator”, -4 loyalty…. +6 vs. spies, – 20% happiness…
6 attempted & failed trials: “Assassinator”, -5 loyalty…. +2 vs. spies, -40% happiness….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

Failed treason plots have no effect apart from giving the general vices that can make him harder to get rid of - more resistant to spies.

---

False…. See above…. Also, the fact is that with enough failed trials it actually becomes easier pull it off due to severely lowered loyalty that comes out of repeated attempts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

Successful treason plots apparently raise loyalty of all generals - though I can't say I've noticed it.

---

False…. No additional loyalty-bonuses elsewhere for successful treason-trials – as in other generals. Also to be clear here, successful trials execute the target-general in question – no exceptions. It does not increase any loyalty anywhere....



Anyway, feel free to check it out first hand in the game, if you like folks....

- A

Long time ago, Ludens made an excellent post regarding spies (and other agents). I'll make an excerpt of it (the relevant part) for future reference here. I also taken the liberty to cross out the parts that are obviously wrong - for the sake of clarity. Anyway here it is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Spies
Spies gather information like other agents, but spies are invisible, can warn you of imminent attacks and cause discontent in enemy provinces as well. And they have even more functions:

• Secret police in own provinces: they improve loyalty by {40% + 20 * spy_valour}, but only the highest-valour spy is taking into calculation (except in vanilla MTW).
• Intercepts enemy spies and assassins in own provinces. A spy gains valour through this, even if he is aided by a border fort. Valour helps catching even more spies.
• Gather information in enemy provinces
• Causes unrest in enemy provinces: as spy decreases loyalty by {40% + 20 * spy_valour}. Before VI you could wolf pack enemy provinces with spies but after VI this doesn't work anymore. Only the most experienced spy now lowers loyalty. A spy gains valour for every rebellion he causes.
• Warns you of planned attacks by the AI factions. The information will include the attacker, the target and the number of years before the attack can be expected. This gains him stars. Keep in mind however, that the AI can also make opportunistic attacks, and that planned attacks can be cancelled, for example if the target strengthens his garrison.
• Reveals hidden vices of enemy (VI/MTW) and friendly (MTW-only) generals. The general also gains a spy-defence vice (even if nothing was revealed). If several repeated attempts at revelation occur, the general will get severe anti-spy vices that will lower loyalty of his province. This is a rather cheesy tactic to cause revolts.
• Frames friendly generals for treason. The success of this action depends on the loyalty of the general, the skill of the spy and perhaps the command rating of the general. If successful, the accused general will die and your other generals will gain a loyalty boost. If unsuccessful, the general loses loyalty, gains a spy-protection vice and perhaps there is a loyalty-penalty for your other generals as well.
• Can open the gates of besieged castles. Success depends on the skill of the spy and the number of defenders.

Spies are invisible, but can be caught by other spies and border forts. High valour protects them from detection. EatYerGreens suggested a training strategy for spies that involved an assassin trap. Place a spy and a zero-star emissary in a border province without border forts. This will lure in enemy assassins that will be captured by the spy, thus gaining him valour. A port in the province will also draw in agents that try to take an oversea shortcut.
Have at least one spy in every province and when you go conquering, take a number with you. They are cheaper then garrisons. Also keep a cordon of spies around your important generals (the king, his sons, etc.) to protect him from assassins, but don't have those spies follow him into enemy territory if there are border forts present! Framing generals for treason is useful early in the game when your influence is low and you don't have many options, but it tends to go awry even on low loyalty generals and with disastrous results, so do not undertake this lightly.

Requirements: brothel. If you have VI, the brothel can be upgraded to bawdy house (+2 valour) in MTW campaign and to cunny warren (+3 valour) in VI campaign.

Cost: 100.

---

Drone if you see this, then you probably should make some corrections at your Wiki-article about spies as it has the same errors as far as I can tell. And you possibly could also include the trial-vices, and the -1 loyalty penalty (as outlined in post:20) as well somehow - that is my suggestion for you anyway. Regardless, I hope Ludens post will be useful here...

- A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axalon

Drone if you see this, then you probably should make some corrections at your Wiki-article about spies as it has the same errors as far as I can tell. And you possibly could also include the trial-vices, and the -1 loyalty penalty (as outlined in post:20) as well somehow - that is my suggestion for you anyway. Regardless, I hope Ludens post will be useful here...

---

The errors are there because I took the info from that very post (it in the credits section). :bow:

So there is no effect on other generals when you try one of them?

Excuse me, Asai, for trying to interpret your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

Spies only affect the loyalty of the province, not the loyalty of generals.

---

One should read this: presence of a spy in the province does not make the generals more (or less) loyal if you don't start trails for loyalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

The errors are there because I took the info from that very post (it in the credits section). :bow:

---

I guess that explains it then....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

So there is no effect on other generals when you try one of them?

---

None what so ever… (Goes for both VI/V2.01 and V.1.1).

When in doubt, go to the source (in this case the game) and check it out
first hand. That is what I do....

- A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axalon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
Spies only affect the loyalty of the province, not the loyalty of generals.

---

False…. Spies affect the loyalty of target-generals due to failed treason-trials. Per each attempted and failed trial: -1 Loyalty as a result… And then there is the vices too….


Vices gained:
===========

1 attempted & failed trial: “Informants”, -0 loyalty…. +2 vs. spies
2 attempted & failed trials: “Informant network”, -1 loyalty…. +4 vs. spies
3 attempted & failed trials: “Spy Network”, -2 loyalty…. +4 vs. spies
4 attempted & failed trials: “Spy Network”, -3 loyalty…. +4 vs. spies
5 attempted & failed trials: “Secret Assassinator”, -4 loyalty…. +6 vs. spies, – 20% happiness…
6 attempted & failed trials: “Assassinator”, -5 loyalty…. +2 vs. spies, -40% happiness….

---

Hello Axalon, like Girlandir says, i also undestood that Asai meant whether spies affect generals' loyalty by their default presence. If so, and i think that this is how it was meant, then what ws said is actually true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axalon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
Failed treason plots have no effect apart from giving the general vices that can make him harder to get rid of - more resistant to spies.

---

False…. See above…. Also, the fact is that with enough failed trials it actually becomes easier pull it off due to severely lowered loyalty that comes out of repeated attempts.

---

Combined with the above, i'd say that this information is certainly incomplete but not false. False means something entirely wrong or untrue and this is not tha case. Thank you for adding/correcting the info presented, but there is no need to discredit the author of it in doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axalon

This time around it will be me (again).

---

I'm sure we all welcome your knowledgeable contributions Axalon, but there is really no need trying to outdo in a discrediting manner fellow members by contributing. Whatever tension or rivalry may have existed or still exists between you and Asai, using misteps of others (with a bit of of conscious or unconscious extra misunderstanding) in order to outdo them only feeds the tension and exacerbates said rivalries, creating a climate of fear and hostility. There is enough space for all of us here, no need to outdo anyone.

Please bury the hatchet, because it is quite unpleasant to see this sort of thing in the main hall where there is a very friendly climate of collaboration, friendship and understanding for ages now. This behaviour is certainly unworthy of someone of your contributions to the MTW community in my eyes.

One more thing I never use spies for is trials for loyalty as I don't see any use in it. I mean that when you do that there can be 2 outcomes: 1) the general is found guilty and executed (thus you get rid of him); 2) the general is found not guilty and stays with you, but his loyalty plummets (thus you have to get rid of him asap). In any case the ultimate objective comes down to getting rid of the general anyway. So, why not do it sooner and simpler by disbanding the general's unit without any trials? Of course I don't know whether you can trial an heir and in this case it may be the only way to get rid of him (you can't disband his unit). But otherwise I believe my attitude to be correct. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, I'll be glad to learn it.

No flaw, just remember that the spy gets extra valor for plotting the trial. In this way you can train spies to hgh valor and then use them for mischief in enemy areas. Viewed from that way, essentially the point is not to rid of the general but train the spy.

Does the spy get valor in case the defendant was found guilty or not guilty or either way?

If memory serves, for every succesful assigned mission ie for a succesful trial.

edit: one easy and relatively fast way to valor up spies and assassins is not to build border forts in a province with a port preferably and station a spy or assassin there. As enemy assassins and spies make their way through there your agent will cath them and valor up pretty quickly. Once he is of a decent valor, you can use him elsewhere for assassination, trials etc, while putting a newby agent there to recharge the valor.

People here speak of spies fomenting rebellions in other faction's provinces. How exactly do you perform this fomenting? Do you have to do something with your spy? I had thought that being present in an alien province the spy lowers its loyalty by default. So in my last Egyptian campaign I tried to do that against Italians. They owned Crete and it was cut off from their king in Granada (no ships to connect them). Since the province had neither border fort nor watchtower I put there two of my best spies (both valor 4) and waited. In six or seven turns the loyalty didn't drop a single per cent! So I stopped fooling around and sent an expeditional force there. Well, I repeat the question put at the beginning of the post: How do you do that?

It works by just moving your spy into the province. Only your highest valour spy in the province counts, and I believe the effect is 40% + 20% per star, so you should have seen an 80% drop. Buildings and tax policy counter this of course, and it's possible the AI put one of his own spies in the province to counter the effect (counterspy uses the same formula to raise the happiness).

Assassins work quicker, I believe but that disbanding trick seems to me the most efficient way. Actually, inquisitions from the enemy seem to do the best job of all getting rid of flawed generals (it seems so, anyway). I use a lot of spies but mainly in defense - to combat enemy assassins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordK9

Assassins work quicker, I believe but that disbanding trick seems to me the most efficient way. Actually, inquisitions from the enemy seem to do the best job of all getting rid of flawed generals (it seems so, anyway). I use a lot of spies but mainly in defense - to combat enemy assassins.

---

Assassins don't cause rebellions which I had in mind. Well, it seems that spies don't either (in my case didn't).

They (assassins) might be able to - if an assassin fails, it will say something like, "even though the origin is unknown, the general is suspicious" which may mean lower loyalty. Also, I THINK that for a rebellion to happen, it needs a leader with both low loyalty and high dread. One of the spy warning messages mentions this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordK9

They (assassins) might be able to - if an assassin fails, it will say something like, "even though the origin is unknown, the general is suspicious" which may mean lower loyalty. Also, I THINK that for a rebellion to happen, it needs a leader with both low loyalty and high dread. One of the spy warning messages mentions this.

---

I meant not the garrison rebelling but appearance of rebels in the province that will oppose the loyal garrison. Assassins can't turn the PROVINCE disloyal.

Sorry; I keep getting civil wars and loyalist/peasant revolts mixed up.