Spyder's web

[Gilrandir]

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?

[Prince Cobra]

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. 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...

[Gilrandir]

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.

[I of the Storm]

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

[Brandy Blue]

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.

[gollum]

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)

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.

[caravel]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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

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.

[Axalon]

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

I guess that explains it then....

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

[gollum]

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.

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.

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.

[Gilrandir]

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.