New spy mission: Spy Treaties

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Dear users,

please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.

The old forum is set to read-only mode now.

Your Ikariam Team

  • New spy mission: Spy Treaties

    General Information:

    What are you suggesting?

    That we be allowed to spy what treaties a player has. This would include Trade Treaties, Garrison Rights, Alliance treaties (Peace Treaties, Mutual Defence Pacts, Alliance Garrison Rights, etc), etc. I would exclude Cultural Treaties because there are so many and the player can already tell if she has a CT with the target.

    How will it change the interface/gameplay/battles/system?

    N/A

    Suggestion Reason:

    This will enable the spying player to better know the wider ramifications of an attack.

    Special Notes:

    This might be split into two missions, one for the target player and one for the target alliance. I believe it should be kept as one because it's still a small amount of information.

    0048381
    Alpha: member of Pirate's Cove.
    Beta: Leader of United Galley Slaves.
  • I'd say yes for the "player treaties " part .

    im not sure about the alliance treaties part because spying a single player shouldnt put a whole alliance behind . well atleast in my opinion
    "More hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than in the name of rebellion " ~C. P. Snow

  • Sounds reasonable, so YES from me.

    Btw - I believe he meant alliance garrison treaties with specified player or his towns.
    Found a bug or think something doesn't work in the game? Don't be afraid and write a ticket or PM me! :)


    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    (c) Albert Einstein
  • i vote no.
    because sending in people in enemy alliance as spy is a part of game. and we can already check these kind of info between the alliances in the alliance treaties section.
    and when it comes to finding about other people you can still do it if you spy his messages on correct time.
    so i dont want to end the in game privacy.
  • Quartz wrote:

    don wrote:

    because sending in people in enemy alliance as spy is a part of game.


    With the multi-national server merges this is no longer always possible. It would be very difficult for a Briton to infiltrate an Iranian or Turkish alliance, for instance.


    or -vn- or danish too.
    but still you know when you know certain things it destroy the suspense .
    and i like some suspense :P
    one of my guy try to join a -vn- alliance they asked for his facebook account for the proof , he had a vn friend he impersonated himself as his friend and vn believed him.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by don ().

  • we can say that this would remove some depth from the game or some of its strategies for the price of making it easier for the average players .
    "More hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than in the name of rebellion " ~C. P. Snow

    The post was edited 1 time, last by K1Netic ().

  • Quartz wrote:

    Alliance treaties (Peace Treaties, Mutual Defence Pacts, Alliance Garrison Rights, etc)

    Aside from the garrison rights, the others are just vernacular and have no real ingame mechanic, no? So while the garrison rights could be seen, it wouldn't be as much as you're thinking.

    Though overall I dislike the idea. I feel like treaties are generally easy to figure out when it comes to alliances and as for untagged players, it's just part of the risk when sizing them up. Also, you can get treaties via spying communications if it's been recent enough.


    I don't play any servers anymore, I'm just here for the spam and
    :xeno: :xeno: :xeno:




    badidol wrote:

    Dammit, this thing dies darned slowly.




    badidol wrote:

    Go and check the permissions the Facebook app wants, I dare you
  • i dont want to end the in game privacy.
    Since we can spy private messages (while they are not deleted yet) - I can't see privacy as a reason against it.
    Found a bug or think something doesn't work in the game? Don't be afraid and write a ticket or PM me! :)


    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    (c) Albert Einstein
  • Do you like this suggestion? 24
    1.  
      Yes (22) 92%
    2.  
      No (2) 8%

    Draxo wrote:

    i dont want to end the in game privacy.
    Since we can spy private messages (while they are not deleted yet) - I can't see privacy as a reason against it.

    but if you delete the message than spy cant get it . so you can still keep it private.
  • I agree on a spy mission with which we can spy on Trade Treaties and Garrison Rights Treaties of a player but not alliance. Also the mission should be of high risk.

    Sometimes we need to cut the provisioning of a player with units and resources from other players or dig him out from where he may be hiding. So this spy mission will help us pinpoint the ones possibly backing him up or hiding him.

    And for the ones of you who want to hide stuff then build 32 LvL Hideouts with 32 spies working on defense.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by A N U B I S. ().

  • IP sharing treaties is sensitive information and only player & game administration should be allowed to see it.
    Found a bug or think something doesn't work in the game? Don't be afraid and write a ticket or PM me! :)


    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    (c) Albert Einstein
  • Draxo wrote:

    IP sharing treaties is sensitive information and only player & game administration should be allowed to see it.

    Agreed with Draxo there. The furthest I'd be good with would be the number of IP Share, no more.


    I don't play any servers anymore, I'm just here for the spam and
    :xeno: :xeno: :xeno:




    badidol wrote:

    Dammit, this thing dies darned slowly.




    badidol wrote:

    Go and check the permissions the Facebook app wants, I dare you
  • but it does appear in alliance treaties when the member joins u can easily check if he has ip shares with other alliances.
    So can the mission only say that he has an ip sharing treaty with X alliance for example ?
    "More hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than in the name of rebellion " ~C. P. Snow