Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'd like to see captured spies being added to the defending nations total number of spies. The message could easily be adjusted. Seems to me that a captured agent could be Stockholmed and turned back on their former mother land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 No. This would make buying spies irrelevant and make it far too easy for nations to build up an untouchable intelligence agency. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) You can already do that. A nation left alone buying 2 at a time each day would have no issues overcoming any other spy incursion given enough time. This would serve three purposes. It reinforces the importance of spies, it forces nations to really calculate how many spies they use, and it gives the ability for more than 2 spies to be obtained per day. I'm not saying each spy needs to be kept, but maybe if 10 are captured, the defender keeps 2 kills 8. Edited April 9, 2015 by CzarOptima Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 If we had to pay for it, I think it should cost less. The spy was caught in enemy territory, therefore the benefit should go to the defender. I pay $50,000 for a spy as it is now. I think it should be more like $20,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 If we had to pay for it, I think it should cost less. The spy was caught in enemy territory, therefore the benefit should go to the defender. I pay $50,000 for a spy as it is now. I think it should be more like $20,000. You're also forgetting the fact that you'd be exerting some sort of force and training(brainwashing) to get them to come over. No, it should be double if it is added. However, this is just a bad idea. So I would say no all around. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 You're also forgetting the fact that you'd be exerting some sort of force and training(brainwashing) to get them to come over. No, it should be double if it is added. However, this is just a bad idea. So I would say no all around. How is it a bad idea all around? Its one of those chaotic elements needed to factor risk and reward. Its realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malice Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I am generally against double-win mechanics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicboyd25 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Good idea in thought, but I dont agree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 How about if you capture a spy you have the option to convert them? Say for 100k? but you can buy a new one for 50k Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakai Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 but you can buy a new one for 50k I completely agree. I don't see why everyone is against capturing spies. The defender wins because they had better odds, its not a double win mechanism, its good tactics. Keeping a few spies is the win mechanism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.