In my test campaign, which consists of continuation missions, the last mission has decided 'Sabotage' and 'Breaking Alliances.'

I think you will find that when you get to that last mission, sabotage will not be allowed. This is because you had one of the previous missions set to disallow sabotage. Can you test this and let me know? It would be nice if someone else could validate my findings.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't deny your findings. What I want to say is that the designer should pay attention to the last mission.

My custom campaign has the following settings.
mission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
settings x x x x x x x o (x:not allowed, o:allowed)
I can send Sabotage Spies throughout the campaign.

After reading your post, I tested the following settings.

mission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
settings o o o o o o o x
I couldn't send throughout the campaign.

mission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
settings x x x x x x o x
I couldn't send throughout the campaign.

mission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
settings o o o o o o x o
I could send throughout the campaign.

mission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
settings o x x x x x x x
I couldn't send throughout the campain.

Of course my test isn't perfect and I don't know if these results apply to other campaign. However I think that the designer should pay attention to the last mission.

Good work! My testing did not include extensive analysis of how the setting in the last mission affected the whole campaign. I will edit my original post to reflect your findings.

Thanks to your post, I could give up switching 'Sabotage.' You have decided to allow 'Sabotage'? I have decided to disallow 'Sabotage.' Luckily my Player City has many Vassals and Player can rely on 'military strike.' (In my test, 3 'military strikes' reduced Rival's shields by one point. My Vassals have military strength of 3/4(4/6 shields).) I think 'military strike' can be one option in some missions.

I agree that sabotage by spies is really overpowered when used by a player against a rival's military. In fact, I have disallowed sabotage in every custom campaign I've made in the last year.

I am making an attempt to allow it in the current one I'm working on, because it is part of the storyline for one of the missions. To get this feature I have to allow it for all the missions

I am attempting to lessen the impact of sabotage by careful event scripting and missions of shorter length. At this point I'm not sure how effective this will be in preserving the balance. Testing will reveal more.

Spy is a part of the storyline?
Judging from your username of Gweilo, the subject of that mission must be 'Assassin.'

The word assassin is in the title of that mission, but that's all I'm saying for now.

[This message has been edited by Gweilo (edited 03-28-2004 @ 01:17 AM).]

Of course, I don't want to know all until release. Your focuses are always unique. The next focus will also surprise me.

Just wanted to share some of the ideas I'm trying to balance the powerful ability of spies to sabotage a rival's military.

• Scripted 'military buildup' events. They don't work as fast as the spies' sabotage, but they do help some.

• Scripted 'city becomes rival' events. If a player uses sabotaging spies to clear the way for an easy conquest, this event insures that city won't be a vassal for long.

• Shorter time limits in the missions. In a shorter mission there is not much shield growth for rival cities, so using spies for sabotage is not that helpful.

• Restricted access to weapons. By restricting a player's ability to make (and import) weapons, their military growth is slowed, so they can use sabotaging spies for defensive purposes rather than to clear the way for their own attack.
  

Restricting access to weapons would make me LESS likely to use military spies.
At least until I got 2 forts(ally request for weapons) and tried to conquer a city.
Sending spies usually cause increased spy activity in your own city. I prefer not to use them until things are going well for the city.

[This message has been edited by shaun (edited 03-30-2004 @ 02:56 PM).]

Good point, I should have qualified it by saying to use spies defensively only when a rival's shield count begins to exceed your own - and then get ready for the consequences.

Combination of 'city conquered' events
I am creating a mission with a custom faction to simulate 'Empire vs Empire.' I think this faction is difficult to conquer regardless of Sabotage Spy.

Sample (4 cities faction)
Scripted Events
(1)City A conquers City B. (2)City B conquers City A.
(3)City C conquers City D. (4)City D conquers City C
(5)City A conquers City C. (6)City B conquers City D
(7)City C conquers City A. (8)City D conquers City B.

Year/Month/Events
1
2 Feb: Event (1)-(4) are scripted. (optional)
3 Feb: Event (5)-(8) are scripted.
3 Mar: Event (1)-(4) are scripted.
4 Feb: Event (1)-(4) are scripted. (optional)
5 Feb: Event (5)-(8) are scripted.
5 Mar: Event (1)-(4) are scripted.
v
v
v
(Time Limit)

Intention
1)A player has to conquer city A(/C) and B(/D) in the same year. (when optional events are scripted)
2)A player has to conquer city A, B, C and D in the same 2 years.

Merits and Demerits
1)A designer can change the strength of the faction by editing the trade routes. (I think Sun Tzu will be very important Hero.)
2)Many 'city conquered' events are required. However, if a designer makes a plan carefully, he can delete most of them.
3)One Rival often conquers another Rival. I think they will annoy the player and harm the quality of the campaign.

(I tested the following combinations of events.
ID/ sub type/ city from/ attacking city/ trigger/ year from-to/ month/ results
0/ city conquered/ vassal X/ rival Y/ one time/ 1-1/ March/ occcurred
1/ city conquered/ rival Y/ vassal X/ one time/ 1-1/ March/ occurred after ID0

0/ city conquered/ rival Y/ vassal X/one time/ 1-1/ March/ wouldn't occur
1/ city conquerd/ vassal X/ rival Y/one time/ 1-1/ March/ occurred )

[This message has been edited by KaZu (edited 03-30-2004 @ 10:00 PM).]

KaZu, can you explain to me how having all those cities attack each other in reciprocal fashion creates a faction? I'm lost.

You seem to be doing something interesting here, and I would like to understand it. Thanks.

Edited: KaZu, if you want to explain this in more detail, I think Shaun's idea is good - create a new topic. The discussion of factions gets off the subject of spies. Thanks.

[This message has been edited by Gweilo (edited 03-31-2004 @ 07:56 PM).]

I'm interested in the info but I would think that a 'New Topic' would do better justice to the subject 'city conquered event'.
I have buried information in threads that may never get re-read because the thread topic was somewhat unrelated.

[This message has been edited by shaun (edited 03-31-2004 @ 01:41 PM).]

Gweilo: Sorry, my post is always short of explanation. As you are aware, I'm not good at English. Pardon me for my English and 'Turtle Reply.'
Shaun: I agree to 'New Topic.' I think 'city conquered' events are very interesting/useful events. However I hesitate to create a new topic. Because I cannot generalize my idea in English. Let me post here. (I believe One Great Analyst will create a new topic and generalize about 'city conquered' event.)

Remember/Keep in mind the following points.
1)'City conquered' event won't occur, when 'attacking city' is Ally or Vassal.
2)In most cases, a player cannot dispatch his troops more than 2 times a year.
3)In conquering 2 rivals in a year, ''Distance' is as important as the number of 'Shields.'
4)I'm not 100% sure that my custom faction will work according to my intention.
4)My custom faction has nothing to do with City Favor(Game Faction). It means that a player has to conquer the particular target(e.g. the Capital City) or ALL Rivals that belong to my custom faction during short term.
(I don't know if the term of 'faction' is adequate.)

Sample of 2 Cities Custom Faction
Scripted Events
ID/ sub type/ city from/ attacking city/ trigger/ year from-to/ month
x/ city conquered/ city B/ city A/ one time/ y-y/ Feb
x+1/ city conquered/ city A/ city B/ one time/ y-y/ Feb (y=1,2,3,4,5....)

What happens? (Assuming that city A and B are Rivals at the beginning of the mission.)
1)When a player does nothing, both events will occur. However 'Rival conquers Rival' events bring nothing to the player. Only annoying. ('Faction' sometimes means 'fighting' within a party or group?)
2)When a player conquers(allies with)city A, city B will reconquer city A.(event 'x+1') In this case, event 'x' won't occur because 'attacking city' is vassal(ally). That is, the player loses vassal(ally)A.
3)When a player conquers(allies with) city B, city A will reconquer city B.(event 'x') In this case, event 'x+1' will occur after event 'x.' (bring nothing) That is, the player loses vassal(ally) B.

After all, a player has to conquer(ally with) both A and B in the same year.

How to conquer
1)Conquer city A and B in the same year.
2)Conquer city A(B) and ally with B(A). Then conquer B(A) within a year. (I think 'set/subtract favor' event will make this tactic impossible.)

Distance
When trade routes are enough long (a player cannot dispatch his troops 2 times a year), this faction is very difficult to conquer. ('unconquerable' without Sun Tzu) So, if a designer tunes Distance carefully, Sun Tzu will be Hero of Heroes. (not tested)
(I don't know if a player can conquer a rival city by 'military strike.' I'll try it in this mission.)

Other Types
'4 Cities Custom Faction' is a combination of two '2 Cities Custom Faction.' I think there are many variations.
(eg. the Capital City type, China Syndrome type etc.)
(PS: I also used 'city conquered' event as 'Land Mine.' In my custom campaign, what a player should fear most is doing something to fire 'Rival conquers Vassal' events.)

[This message has been edited by KaZu (edited 04-01-2004 @ 03:08 AM).]

My solution would be to increase favor with all cities. Ally with the first city conquered after the second city is conquered. Ally with the rest in succession. The allied city would then be prevented from attacking another city via the 'city conqueredv event'. When my military is ready for conquests I would break alliances(bleeding them dry with requests, if 'break alliance' option is disabled) and vassalize at my conveniance.
If alliances are made difficult then I would vassalize each after they were conquered.

City conquered event has no effect on trade status, only ally/vassal status. There appears to be NO military troop losses or troop movements resulting from the event. If the player city is targeted (City From: ) then the event will ONLY fire if the the aggressor (Attacking City: ) is a rival. NO 'empire changes' result from targeting the player, nor do any troops actually invade.

Its use would be as a 'warning flag' that there is a military aggressor; and an alternate means to break vassal/ally status. In effect, its a weaker(trade status intact)/conditional(allying or vassilizing aggressor stops event) form of 'city becomes rival'.

PS: With 12 forts I could split my forces 3 ways(4 forts per invasion). 2 forces available for conquests and one remains home to guard and recoperate.

corrected:
Trade route length is of some importance.
Two-way time elapse:
(exit point leaving -to- return of force to your city):
land route 6 months minimum
water route 9 months minimum
(half is going to / half for return - no 'battle time months' like invasions of your city).
The variable in LONG routes seems to start at 20%-30% of the empire map size (height/width).
Each additional 10% will add; 1 month for land routes / 2 months for the water routes. Perhaps its the number of dashes that is being used to calculate added travel time beyond the minimum.

Tsu doesn't seem to work well for water routes from my experiance. I seldom send heroes so its not something I fully tested.

KaZu;
Your communication skills are as good or better than mine.

[This message has been edited by shaun (edited 04-11-2004 @ 12:50 PM).]

Thanks for information. I wanted to know 'trade routes length,' My main purpose of the campaign I'm creating is 'Yearly Profit.' So I don't prefer long trade routes. (I somewhat regret that Sun Tzu isn't worth summoning.) I'm going to edit the settings to make your tactics impossible.

Added: 'To Divide Enemy' by alliance is primary strategy. So your tactic should be possible.

"bleeding them dry with requests"
I like this tyrannical tactic. The title of my second mission is 'Tyrant Yangdi.' I wanted to weave this idea into my mission. However I have already used 119 events.

[This message has been edited by KaZu (edited 04-01-2004 @ 05:45 AM).]

Troops exit and enter the terrain map at the EXIT point. It's standard practice(for me) to place forts near the exit point.

The times listed in the above post are for 'empire map' movements.

About the heroes, I don't use them on invasions because there effect is minimal (NOT worthless). There are borderline situations that a hero could be helpful, but I would much prefer them to stay in my city were I have other uses for them.

[This message has been edited by shaun (edited 04-01-2004 @ 04:20 PM).]

I corrected and added some information to post 17.

Apologies go to KaZU for misleading him about the 'travel time' of military forces on LONG trade routes. I haven't messed with long routes until recently.

Shaun, about your edit to post 17, I'm not sure it is clear that Sun Wu Kong speeds up the empire map travel time of emissaries, while Sun Tzu speeds up the travel time of military forces. At least it wasn't clear to me, if you were indeed trying to say that.

Nevermind, I was mistaken about Sun Wu Kong.

The test setup used was re-sending the troops immediately after returning. I was under the assumption that travel time started when the troops left the map (this is how I recall it pre-patch).
The travel time begins immediatly after sending the troops. It appears that placing forts near the exit point is now a worthless statagy.

I think its time for me to permantly retire from attempting brain activity.

Don't retire yet, you will want to have a go at the contest campaigns in E:BE

[This message has been edited by Gweilo (edited 04-11-2004 @ 02:21 PM).]

Shaun: What I expect in this forum is not only a mere answer but also an useful suggestion. I think your posts are rich in suggestions. In this meaning, your posts are always useful for me. And I know testing Troops and Military Hero is hard work. I'm now suffering with 'Invasion from Vassal' and 'Inflation.' After these problems, I will be testing Sun Tzu and Forts location.

PS: Roger Clemens is playing for Houston Astros. If you are a great warrior like Clemens, you should come out of retirement for Houston Designer(Gweilo).