Spies (& their counterparts) - Do you use them?

[zala]

Started playing Rome II again recently, been quite a while but I knew I couldn't enjoy it unless I had DeI installed (as well as various other mods, main one being Mitch empires mod)

First off, fantastic strides and development has been done since I last touched Rome II with DeI, it was amazing when I used to play and it's even better now.

Now on to the topic, spies and their counterparts for other factions, since playing 1.1, do you bother using them and/or training them up?

If so, how and what strategies do you use?

Curious as seemed pretty pointless levelling up mine on the various campaigns I've enjoyed this past week.

[Dresden]

One note, we have our own version of the auto resolve bonuses in 1.1 now. So, Mitch's mod may not be necessary anymore (I don't know if it will conflict, but it may double up on them). I actually haven't tested it so it may be fine.

Spies in 1.1 definitely got nerfed, I won't lie. But, their primary purpose is supposed to be exploring and, as their name implies, spying. They also can impact garrisons and slow armies. They most certainly are the least useful of the agents now, simply because champions and governors have a very defined and important role in DeI. Perhaps that is something we can look into, maybe have them somehow impact politics or have a larger sabotage role in terms of culture or PO.

[papaya beast]

Perhaps spies could help reduce the number of assassination attempts on your faction leaders when deployed in your provinces? Since they don't have political affiliation, I'd like to imagine they are loyal to the political party of the player, which could help them regain usefulness in home territories, to couple with their scouting use in enemy provinces.

[zala]

Ah really? Might playtest Iceni and go 50 turns then remove fow and rinse and repeat every 20 turns after that without Mitch's mod and just DeI, see what happens.

Yeah and I'm grateful for that, but wish it would apply to the AI spies in a more harsh manner, either that or have a submod that just removes spies from the game. Still get the AI spy spam which plagued vanilla Rome (yes not too as high or detrimental use, but it's still there)

That's really my only gripe with the current state of the mod. I went into 1.1 fully blind from all the improvements you had made since I last played, honestly the supply system is simply fantastic, kudos. It caught me completely off guard and ruined my first campaign as had no idea what it was or how it affected things so had a read through it all, absolutely wonderful work +1 to you all!

[BMLlednar]

I generally attach a spy to my first army. Dignitaries and champions aren't available yet, and herbalist spies give a nice boost to replenishment while the basic zeal skill boosts movement. Military intelligence is a lot less useful now that poison isn't a thing to protect against though. The idea of protection from political assassination on top of agent attacks could be good, if that's actually possible to implement.

[zala]

I generally attach a spy to my first army. Dignitaries and champions aren't available yet, and herbalist spies give a nice boost to replenishment while the basic zeal skill boosts movement. Military intelligence is a lot less useful now that poison isn't a thing to protect against though. The idea of protection from political assassination on top of agent attacks could be good, if that's actually possible to implement.

I never did that in Vanilla or previous DeI versions, always went for poisoning and mass poisoning, so much so it never actually registered to me you could even attach a spy to your army until you mentioned it. I will try that in my next fresh campaign

[BMLlednar]

Well, like I said, it's less important now that poison provisions is gone. I am somewhat curious as to how many people having trouble with AI spy spam actually used defensive spies to protect high-value armies. I always saw dignitaries and champions as risk-reward type things. You're giving up the protection of a spy and thus leaving your army vulnerable, but in exchange you get reduced upkeep or bonus experience. That said I also suck at this game and play on easy, so I may well have no idea what I'm talking about.

[zala]

I am somewhat curious as to how many people having trouble with AI spy spam actually used defensive spies to protect high-value armies.

This is exactly my point, I have NEVER on R2, vanilla or modded, attached a spy to an army. It's never registered to me that you could even do that, I always just went on the offensive with them against the AI army and agent stacks. I'm actually very intrigued to see how this will now play out, especially as it's DeI and they've made changes to spies/traits/talents etc.

[TFCAliarcy]

I use them to convert enemy agents and assassination of armies one that faction loses all of their cities along with rebels.

[zonks40]

Because I primarily play head to head campaigns, spies are of vital importance, with the AI being fairly predictable, against another player you never know what to expect.
I was hoping that with the nerf to spies that we would have access to more, as when fighting a multifront war, it makes it difficult to deploy recon, and with agent spam a thing of the past, having a few may not be a large impact.

[rjacko10]

I was hoping that with the nerf to spies that we would have access to more, as when fighting a multifront war, it makes it difficult to deploy recon, and with agent spam a thing of the past, having a few may not be a large impact.

Good idea. And perhaps cheaper too.

[zala]

Because I primarily play head to head campaigns, spies are of vital importance, with the AI being fairly predictable, against another player you never know what to expect.
I was hoping that with the nerf to spies that we would have access to more, as when fighting a multifront war, it makes it difficult to deploy recon, and with agent spam a thing of the past, having a few may not be a large impact.

This is why I miss watchtowers

[Dresden]

If we add more spies to the cap, the AI will spam them even more sadly.

[riveryanks]

I find spies immensely useful in m campaigns. I have found them very good for converting other agents, especially dignitaries, which can then help with regional bonuses and conversions. By turn 100, I was able to have 20 or so dignitaries, when the cap was 4 or 5. Perhaps this is not intended, or considered abusing the system. If it is, I may stop to increase difficulty. But this seems to be the only benefit of training up spies as the mod stands now.

[JCB206]

I find spies immensely useful in m campaigns. I have found them very good for converting other agents, especially dignitaries, which can then help with regional bonuses and conversions. By turn 100, I was able to have 20 or so dignitaries, when the cap was 4 or 5. Perhaps this is not intended, or considered abusing the system. If it is, I may stop to increase difficulty. But this seems to be the only benefit of training up spies as the mod stands now.

This. I have alot of agents.

[zonks40]

I lost a head to head campaign in Radious just before 1.1 was released because of Agent poison spam, I had two Suebi armies at a river/bridge bordering my lands ready to hold off 3 Roman legions marching up, my opponents allies Agents just sat there in my camp with a barrel of poison pumping the cook pot full of the stuff, it absolutely decimated my armies, the Romans passed through with little resistance.
I'm extremely happy that the DEI team have the same opinion on Agents as I do.

[BMLlednar]

I lost a head to head campaign in Radious just before 1.1 was released because of Agent poison spam, I had two Suebi armies at a river/bridge bordering my lands ready to hold off 3 Roman legions marching up, my opponents allies Agents just sat there in my camp with a barrel of poison pumping the cook pot full of the stuff, it absolutely decimated my armies, the Romans passed through with little resistance.
I'm extremely happy that the DEI team have the same opinion on Agents as I do.

Did you have defensive agents in place? Spies in the armies skilled for military intel and such? If you did have those and got destroyed by poison anyway, that's definitely a problem. It would probably mean defensive skills need a buff to make them more effective at stopping enemy agents. If you didn't have those though...then it sounds like you just lost to an attack you weren't defending against. Isn't that how it should work? They attacked you where you were most vulnerable, and so they won. I'm admittedly pretty terrible at this game, but that seems reasonable to me. Again, that's assuming you didn't have agent defenses in place. If you did and still lost, that's different.

[zonks40]

Isn't that how it should work? They attacked you where you were most vulnerable, and so they won.

I disagree, I don't believe it's the way it should work, maybe once an agent would be able to pull off something like this, but after the first time, the army would make it near on impossible for them to strike again, yet in that game it was happening every turn, and that is why I believe the DEI team have removed that ability.
My head to head opponent and I have always had some in house rules regarding agent abilities, however in this case it was the AI, and as far as defensive agents, there are more armies than agents available, so I can keep all my available agents back to protect my armies while at the same time making them blind to my head to head opponents moves.
Also, having an agent in an army is no guarantee.

[BMLlednar]

I disagree, I don't believe it's the way it should work, maybe once an agent would be able to pull off something like this, but after the first time, the army would make it near on impossible for them to strike again, yet in that game it was happening every turn, and that is why I believe the DEI team have removed that ability.

They would make it difficult for it to happen again by putting some system in place to defend against it. This is represented in-game by defensive agents or other mechanics to reduce agent success rate. If you, as a player, do nothing after the first poisoning...then what that means in practical terms is that the threat is being ignored. This allows it to happen again. And no, there aren't enough agents to do everything at once. There also aren't enough armies to garrison every settlement at once. Deciding where and how to use the limited resources you have is central to gameplay. That's how I see it, anyway.

Also, having an agent in an army is no guarantee.

That's a problem with defensive agents being too weak then. Not offensive agents being too strong. In particular, wound chance for the attacking agent should probably be vastly increased when a defensive agent is involved. That would mitigate their ability to just try again in following turns.

@BMLlednar , they dont need a buff as the poison army ability of spies have been removed. What I believe zonks40 is referring to is a campaign before version 1.1 Spies attached to an army isnt of much use in version 1.1 as they enemy spies have a very limited effect on armies.

Exactly. This is why agent attacks need to be powerful. If enemy spies can't do much to hurt you, you have no incentive to keep your own in armies to defend against them rather than out collecting information. There's also no longer a downside to filling that slot with a champion or dignitary instead of a spy. That trade-off no longer exists, and that's not a good thing. I guess I'm in the minority for thinking this though.

[SteveInAlabama]

The primary value of a Spy traveling with an Army is greater movement points.