A feature I actually would like to see removed

[Blxz]

I dunno. Spies - and indeed many other features in TW - are an abstract. No-one is surely suggesting that one man can act in this manner as a spy, and that he would be so hugely expensive to recruit and maintain. Ancient societies of all types used bribery, subterfuge and espionage type activities. Agents might not be recruited and employed directly by states, but would have provided detailed and relevant information to however was paying them at that time. The fact that "spies", "diplomats" and "assassins" are used in game to represent a complex system of information gathering and behind the scenes activities is just that a representation. If anything there should be more of this kind of activity in the game.

One thing that features in a massive number of ancient military campaigns for example is that they would be advised by a rival to the throne of the place they were attacking.

Whats your point? This post does not relate at all to the fact that spies and assassins start out as untrained.

[Cute Wolf]

Whats your point? This post does not relate at all to the fact that spies and assassins start out as untrained.

I think that was related, because it means every "spy" or "assassin" was a new "spy" or "assassin" agency.... ^^ and the people shown are the head of teh agency, and when mission failed, he was safe or taking suicide

[Ludens]

Whats your point? This post does not relate at all to the fact that spies and assassins start out as untrained.

Actually, it does. Recruiting "trained" or "untrained" spies suggests there was such a thing as a spy school. The wording of the OP implies something similar. Cambyses points out that in reality spies were recruited ad-hoc, rather than trained. It seems logical that they would need some time to gain the necessary contacts and skills to become proficient.

Edit: cute_wolf was quicker; or rather I was very slow.

[Cambyses]

Indeed. Thank you Ludens.

[Cyclops]

Its a fair point: like many aspects of the game a broad category of operations (intelligence gathering, counterintelligence, intrigue and fomenting rebellion) has been expressed through an entity in this case an agent. It allows varyinglevels of management-to-micromanagement, in the same way military operations allow the player to be the supreme commander but also direct individual seige engines.

Its fair enough to have individual agents to cover various intel operations, and to the modern mind we associate them with intel agencies that recruit specialists. Once we have that recruitment model in mind then the quality of training suggests itself, and broadly there's something be said for it: a mercantile centre would have a greater number of polyglots with experience of semi-legal-to-downright-corrupt dealings: that'd be your resource pool for spies.

My own impression (very shallow and based as much on the non EB era/area Art of War as anything) is smart commanders and leaders made use of traitors as much as anything, and battlefield intel was very hard to come by.

Some examples of classical military intel that spring to mind: Xerxes approaches Thessally and his Hellenic enemies find out from the Persian's vassal Alexander of Macedon (technically a traitor, and certainly not a "KH" agent).

Later Xerxes marches into Thessaly and has no idea there is a force holdiong a narrow pass until he hits it. A local shows him the way around.

These events might be simulated by FMs having a better LOS or ability that spies currently have to see "into" stacks/cities. Or diplomats might be able to have a "purchase intel" function similar to bribery: cheaper because your buying info not the loyalty of units.

Just speculatin' of course. I lack the skills to mod any of this, and I'm not sure FM's can be given agents abilities, or if the one I suggest for diplomats is even possible.

Spies currently fulfill some modern expectations about warfare and intel and have value telling the story, smoothing gameplay, and also because there probably were secret agents and they did their job well so we don't know about them.

[B-Wing]

Very interesting points, Cyclops. As for the second suggestion (diplomats buying intelligence) I am pretty certain the closest thing that can be done in M2TW is buying map information, which really only provides city positions and no unit/army details. Having an option to purchase army position/composition information would be awesome, but it's just not there. As for modifying generals LOS, I know there are traits that affect it, but I don't know if they can have the degree of detail that spies' LOS automatically provide. That is, generals could definitely be made to see further, but they may not be able to see anything more than the number of question marks an army contains.

With all this in mind, I wonder if it would be simplest to just increase spies' upkeep costs to somewhat more realistically reflect (in an abstract way, of course) the costs of obtaining such detailed information.

[ziegenpeter]

Well, maybe trainig and maintaining a spy, can be seen as a very abstract way of buying intelligence.
EDIT: Woooooops, you wrote that already...

[Parallel Pain]

Actually, it does. Recruiting "trained" or "untrained" spies suggests there was such a thing as a spy school. The wording of the OP implies something similar. Cambyses points out that in reality spies were recruited ad-hoc, rather than trained. It seems logical that they would need some time to gain the necessary contacts and skills to become proficient.

Edit: cute_wolf was quicker; or rather I was very slow.

Then how about:
Get rid of those two traits, and instead make new ones

1) By himself, greatly decrease sight range (really the spies right now have a rediculous sight range, same with armies)
2) Only a few contacts (increase sight range, increase skill point)
3) Large number of contacts (increase sight range, increase skill point)
4) Network (increase sight range, increase skill point)
5) Large Network (increase sight range, increase skill point)
6) Entrenched Network (increase sight range, increase skill point)

Instead of making it so that the spys stay behind to get training to get the trait. Make it so the spy must move into an enemy area/settlement and stay there to build up contacts. The longer he says the more contacts he can build up.

Or wait was that system already in place?

[Ludens]

Or wait was that system already in place?

A basic version: a spy that stays in a settlement for a while does gain a +1 trait for having an established network. Also, a spy's quality is not just determined by the number of his contacts. And the suggestion of the OP is to make the spy-trait system simpler, not more complex.

[Parallel Pain]

A basic version: a spy that stays in a settlement for a while does gain a +1 trait for having an established network. Also, a spy's quality is not just determined by the number of his contacts. And the suggestion of the OP is to make the spy-trait system simpler, not more complex.

Right right.

So what about instead of "trained" and "raw-recruit" it's "experienced" and "inexperienced" + like "incompetent" to "natural born talent"

[jirisys]

i find that the solution is simple... increase the size of the map, and also no trained/untrained trait, to only see arrows when infiltrated, and when more turns go by, see more, since, you can't infiltrate and instantly know everything, you need to recon. I find it that that's a great solution (if possible) and i would love the larger campaign map (with more mov points too) because that would make it with more detail and make more provinces or cities (even maken 2 cities per province, if that is possible) that's my for ya (btw, where the hell did that expression came from????)