Spy attacks during a truce.

[Darkrenown]

The AI seems pretty vindictive in its use of spys, almost to the point I wonder if they save them up and wait for me to DoW on them just to spite me. If they are still around after the war I will have deserting troops, despised merchants and incited revolters left, right and centre for a very long time. This is the prime cause for nations to be re-DoWed as soon as the truce expires in my playing, either that or I fight on to the point I can force vassalise them when I would have been content grabbing a core.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to see some of the following:

A) Nations may not send spys against each other during a peace.
B) A new peace option added, perhaps costing around 10% WS, that would prevent the defeated nation sending spys at the victor during the truce.
C) Much like option B, but costlier and lasting untill the defeated nation can beat the victor in a later war. Or perhaps allow the defeated to sent the spys once the truce expires, but give the victor a CB on them if they do.

What do you think?

 

[unmerged(40278)]

since the whole point of spies is that you don't have to be at war to annoy your enemy, i would suggest you try keeping a high stability and maybe using sliders that give spy defense.

The AI seems pretty vindictive in its use of spys, almost to the point I wonder if they save them up and wait for me to DoW on them just to spite me. If they are still around after the war I will have deserting troops, despised merchants and incited revolters left, right and centre for a very long time. This is the prime cause for nations to be re-DoWed as soon as the truce expires in my playing, either that or I fight on to the point I can force vassalise them when I would have been content grabbing a core.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to see some of the following:

A) Nations may not send spys against each other during a peace.
B) A new peace option added, perhaps costing around 10% WS, that would prevent the defeated nation sending spys at the victor during the truce.
C) Much like option B, but costlier and lasting untill the defeated nation can beat the victor in a later war. Or perhaps allow the defeated to sent the spys once the truce expires, but give the victor a CB on them if they do.

What do you think?

 

[unmerged(49949)]

Use counterespionage to reduce their ability to attack you with spies. Hit them with various spy missions of your own, too.

 

[Desertfox]

What do you think?

You should read Machiavelli`s The Prince.

War is not about who is right but who will be left.

 

[Kanil]

These spy attacks make me wonder.

Where's the AI get all of it's money, or better yet, what is it spending it on? Feels like nothing but spying on me.

Nailed with 3% of inflation, my stability knocked down two levels... The inflation will take 30 years to go away (0.1 per year), and the stability will take a long time. All from a two-prov pagan nation on the other side of an ocean.

 

[knaak250]

i find it more than logical that they send spy's during a truce, cause in most cases war will be declared again when the truce expires and they don't wanna be over run again.

what does annoy me though, is that when you border a nation you have -200 relations with, all there spy actions suddenly goes to you while you haven't done anything to them at all.

eg. in my German game, i had diplo-anexed Poland, giving me a border with Crimea and the OE, suddenly i get swarmed with spy's.....

 

[Darkrenown]

since the whole point of spies is that you don't have to be at war to annoy your enemy, i would suggest you try keeping a high stability and maybe using sliders that give spy defense.

The point was more that a nation I've just smashed should be trying rather hard not to annoy me. The problem is not that I am excessivly harmed by their spys, the point is I am annoyed by them enough to go back to war as soon as the truce expires to either wipe them out or force-vassalise them.

You should read Machiavelli`s The Prince.

War is not about who is right but who will be left.

Not sure what you're point is here. Maybe it's one of his lesser known quotes, but I can't recall any mention of Machiavelli saying "If your enemy has just shown he can defeat you, piss him off with small, annoying attacks untill he kills you", rather he said "No prince is ever benefited by making himself hated".

i find it more than logical that they send spy's during a truce, cause in most cases war will be declared again when the truce expires and they don't wanna be over run again.

Only if your goal is to smash that nation anyway. Quite often I'm content taking my cores/historical gains from them. Other times you just don't want to wipe them out because you are the HR emp and they are a member or annexing them will give you a border with someone big and nastey.

 

[Desertfox]

Not sure what you're point is here. Maybe it's one of his lesser known quotes, but I can't recall any mention of Machiavelli saying "If your enemy has just shown he can defeat you, piss him off with small, annoying attacks untill he kills you", rather he said "No prince is ever benefited by making himself hated".

That was not a Machiavelli quote.
Machiavelli did say however : "War cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the other's advantage."

After you`ve attacked them and forced a humiliating peace on them, do you expect them to simply wait until you are ready to attack them again?

 

[I am.]

I guess I was lucky never to get a spy attack my stability?
All i get is troop desertion , pirates and some minor incoveniences...

 

[Darkrenown]

That was not a Machiavelli quote.

It certainly seems to be:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/machiavelli/works/discourses/ch03.htm
-"...no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli
-"...no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Cruelty_vs._mercy
-"However, a prince must ensure that he is not feared to the point of hatred, which is very possible."

Machiavelli did say however : "War cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the other's advantage."

After you`ve attacked them and forced a humiliating peace on them, do you expect them to simply wait until you are ready to attack them again?

Are you not reading what I write? The only reason I attack them again is to stop their spy attacks. Their spy spam does not help them ("If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." if you want a Machiavelli quote to go with it), it is the sole cause of thier later destruction, furthermore, if I did intent to wipe them out as soon as the truce expires no amount of spys could save them, they'd be better off spending the money on rebuilding their army.

 

[unmerged(70954)]

I think a nice way to deal with this is that if a spy is discovered, you get the option, for a short period similar to a temporary casus belli, to declare war on your defeated enemy with no -5 stab penalty for breaking truce. A free DoW so to speak.

 

[I am.]

I think a nice way to deal with this is that if a spy is discovered, you get the option, for a short period similar to a temporary casus belli, to declare war on your defeated enemy with no -5 stab penalty for breaking truce. A free DoW so to speak.

+1

 

[unmerged(40278)]

I think a nice way to deal with this is that if a spy is discovered, you get the option, for a short period similar to a temporary casus belli, to declare war on your defeated enemy with no -5 stab penalty for breaking truce. A free DoW so to speak.

on top of all the penalties already in place (cash cost, spy cost, bb penalty, prestige penalty), you want another one? i dare say i don't know why the few options the ai has to impede your growth would need weakening.

The point was more that a nation I've just smashed should be trying rather hard not to annoy me. The problem is not that I am excessivly harmed by their spys, the point is I am annoyed by them enough to go back to war as soon as the truce expires to either wipe them out or force-vassalise them.

and this isn't kind of irrelevant in the big picture of things? i doubt the game balance will improve if the ai would try not to annoy you.

 

[Desertfox]

It certainly seems to be:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/machiavelli/works/discourses/ch03.htm
-"...no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated."

I thought you refered to "War is not about who is right but who will be left."

 

[Darkrenown]

and this isn't kind of irrelevant in the big picture of things? i doubt the game balance will improve if the ai would try not to annoy you.

It's hardly irrelevant if it directly leads to the destruction of multiple nations. I dunno, maybe you only play for WC or something and so always end up annexing everyone you fight in a series of wars. Me, I try to play how I think a real nation in the period would act within the limits of the game, and I doubt I'm the only one, so I don't want to have to destroy every nation I ever go to war with to avoid thier spy attacks. Or perhaps you don't mind constantly moving armies away from "deserting troop" provinces or having to replace all your despised merchants. In the event a "cease espionage" peace option was added you would be free not to use it and instead spend your WS taking another province.

 

[unmerged(3921)]

>I don't want to have to destroy every nation I ever go to war with to avoid thier spy attacks.

So don't. Look, spy attacks from one nation may be annoying but they are hardly life threatening. Just ignore them. You seem to think you have some sort of obligation to retaliate against every perceived slight that another nation gives you. You don't. If you do, then why would you expect the other countries to behave any differently than you do? For example you call them vindictive. How is it vindictive that they retaliate after you took their provinces? Seems like they are simply retaliating in a method that befits the weaker power. If anything, the vindictive label seems better applied to a country that feels obliged to DoW anyone that send a spy their way.

 

[unmerged(40278)]

i guess the basic problem here is that you expect the ai to make a very specific judgement. within the limits of this game, you have to either ally or vassalize a country to not be seen as a threat. until then, you are a threat, and there is no reason why the ai shouldn't expect you to destroy them irrelevant of how many spies they send against you.

"maybe he'll ignore me if i just don't send any spies" is wishful thinking and not clever strategy. in every strategy game, a defeated player faces the choice of

a) causing as much damage as possible to the player that defeated them
b) surrender to the player that defeated them

a) is what the ai usually does, and b) is what happens when you forcevassalize them.

It's hardly irrelevant if it directly leads to the destruction of multiple nations. I dunno, maybe you only play for WC or something and so always end up annexing everyone you fight in a series of wars. Me, I try to play how I think a real nation in the period would act within the limits of the game, and I doubt I'm the only one, so I don't want to have to destroy every nation I ever go to war with to avoid thier spy attacks. Or perhaps you don't mind constantly moving armies away from "deserting troop" provinces or having to replace all your despised merchants. In the event a "cease espionage" peace option was added you would be free not to use it and instead spend your WS taking another province.

 

[Darkrenown]

So don't. Look, spy attacks from one nation may be annoying but they are hardly life threatening. Just ignore them.

Well more often it's 2-3 nations due to alliances, not just one. Also, it's not just if I've taken their provinces. Perhaps I have just honored a call to arms or they have DoWed me and I just beat them off and take a white peace or some ducats, the result is still the same. Just telling me not to be annoyed or not to react to spy spam doesn't help either, by that reasoning you shouldn't have bothered posting against freeminting, it doesn't affect you at all if you just ignore it either.

Nor is it just revenge for them daring to spy on me, stopping the spy spam is rather important to actually playing the game. Since if you plan to finish a game in a reasonable amount of time you need to turn up the speed when at peace, but you can't do that AND react to the results of spy spam, not to mention the constant popups. However, even if annoyance was my sole motivation for this idea it would still be valid, games are meant to be fun, not annoying.

Furthermore, spy attacks were meant to be a cause for war as seen by them granting CBs in earlier versions!

The above aside, what harm would adding this do you? Do you think it's somehow unreasonable that a victor in a war should be able to demand the loser cease espionage attempts on them? Do you think it unreasonable that a beaten nation should avoid provoking a country via easily traced sabotage? Would a new peace option somehow make your gameplay less enjoyable?

 

[Darkrenown]

"maybe he'll ignore me if i just don't send any spies" is wishful thinking and not clever strategy.

Only if you view the game as a constant battle to annex everyone else, otherwise unless a nation is making overtly hostile moves after imposing a harsh peace on you it's probably safe to assume they're neatral. Even in that case you'd be better off spending your gold on armies and alliances.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

If you want these former enemies to realize that you mean them no future harm and thus they don't need to send spies against you, improve relations with them. To expect the computer to read your mind and know that you weren't planning to go back to war is, let's just say, a little crazy.

-Pat