I would like to suggest removing the Spies technology before the end of the Treaty timer.
It should only be used to find the remaining units of the opponent, but right now the better boomer tend to get it at a super discounted prize, because many civs do not make many units before the end of the Treaty. Civs with low villagers counts or that save ressources for a Trade card are highly likely to give the option of a cheap Spies to their opponents.
A similar advantage exits for civs making a food to gold Trade: if timed well, this can result in a cheap Spies.
Waiting at the end of the Treaty to be able to buy it would make it fair to all civs.
4 Likes
You want to punish people for being good at the treaty game mode?
And early spies is the only possible way for some civs to ever get spies in treaty - the Hauds, Lakota, and Aztecs will never produce enough gold after the treaty ends to manage spies.
3 Likes
Spies should be used to catch the last units/buildings of the enemy when its main base is out.
Playing without spies is more interesting
But a Frenchman can insert spies or even block the metropolis without having to worry much. In imperial age buildings have a very good field of vision, and spies can be acquired when you start to have the advantage.
No, I want to make it more fair for everyone.
The other day I was Haude VS Ports. As I was planning to Trade, I was heavy on food and still had not created military units. My opponent obviously was playing a civ that could easily boom and reached Imperial and bought Spies easily, while I had to wait to do my Trade to have the opportunity to buy Spies. At that point, my opponent could have easily been overpop, so if I wanted, I would have paid Spies for twice what he paid or more.
Do you see that no amount of skill would have made a difference?
Don’t you agree that at equal skill, getting a discounted Spies will mostly be linked to the civs involved and can be unfair because of it?
Also this:
Many weak civs rely on multiple fronts fights and are really hurt by the opponent having Spies
2 Likes
Using spies not means that you are good, only means that your civ has a better coin eco than others, thats all.
Having spies doesnt give you the victory and they are a waste of coin to me. I mean the bases are place like a mirror and, if you arent a noob you should expect an early cav army from lakota/russia. For me Spies remove the magic of strategy
2 Likes
I’m going to ask the most obvious question…
How the hell did you allow your opponent to use spies on you during the treaty period?
Not only did they need to age up 4 times but get enough gold to pay for 75 for every unit you have while none of your units are dying…
Unless you’re all starting during post industrial age (at the very least) with huge starting resources I don’t see how it’s possible unless you’re absolutely awful.
@Quirriff
Easy, some civs have less villagers as japan or Dutch. Also you dont need units until the end of the treaty.
Some civs like Port or Russia have good ecos that enables them to do spies.
Other as Hauds or Indians should go Fur Trade, having to wait until the end to get coin, when the enemy has 200pop units and they need that coin cause their coin eco is worse than other civs
India and Japan have no churches or fertility dance so they have slow unit production…you should be building up your military so you don’t fall behind anyway 10 unit batches are no excuse to slack off.
As for dutch, you’re likely to get more coin than your opponent anyway.
Hauds should have a whole 25 villiagers on the plaza and a meaning they should more more villagers (also earth mother dance means they can have more pop than china).
Japan and dutch having less vills give the enemy cheaper spies.
With India and Hauds you have to wait to get coin to train units, and you dont want spend coin quickly by doing spies.
The issues is that some civs as ports go to V faster than others