Spies Defend vs Attack


Why does the attacker seem to have the advantage? In TW, you never let anyone scout your village. I take this same rule to TW2. To me it seems, the attacker has the advantage.
  • No advanced warning of spies. Adv Attacker
  • No Timing, so you can never recruit faster then the attacker. Adv Attacker
  • Highest spy always dies 1st, long recruit times. Evenish, all though the attack knows when to start recruiting.
  • No guarantee/consistent countermeasures. Adv Attacker
  • Multiple waves of spies, limit 5 spies per village. Adv Attacker
Seems that spying a village has the advantage to the attacker in almost every scenario. Shouldn't the defender have some chance?

For example, Countermeasures could work more consistent. Like if you have at least 1 defending spy, all countermeasures work every spy report. That way if waves of spies come in, they will get the same information, not 3 different sets of information so the attacker can guess what countermeasures are triggered.

Another Example, Defending spies could die as spy 1, then spy 2, etc... This would make the attacker have to wait longer to recruit spies to attempt spying again. While the defender can recruit faster, to defend vs multiple spy attempts from multiple villages.

Since there is barely any information on how the spy battle system works, we don't know how much the walls/troops/tavern level plays into the calculations. It seems in playing, the spy system is heavily in favor of the attacker at all scenarios. Shouldn't this be more balance to have some scenarios favor the defender.

Discuss please.


Speaking as a player, I personally hate the spies in TW2. I think we need to go back to the TW1 style of spying villages.
I honestly think if we can't go back to the TW1 style, the spies need to be taken out of the game entirely or just not used by the players. I mean, what's the point when you have entire tribes and entire worlds making a form of international pact with other tribes to ban the use of sabotage spies in all wars? I know for a fact that on some worlds on different markets, the players gang up on anyone who uses them, even if the attacker is part of their own tribe.


I would like the Spy feature tweaked as well.

1. I don't have an issue that you don't have advanced warning that you are about to be spied. (that's kind of the point of spying)
2.That being said (see 1), I think once the incident has occurred you should receive a report that you have been spied no matter what.
That report should reflect basic information to advance information based upon the defenders level of tavern and their past spy points (similar to bash points)
For example, if a level 15 tavern with 5 spies attacks a level 3 with one spy; the defender should receive a report stating that they just been spied (leaving off the information gathered or by whom spied, but nonetheless informed him that they have been spied) Giving the defender additional incentive to start building up the tavern levels.
As the Attacker and defender levels become closer (even) more information should be revealed whom spied and what information was obtained.


A few days back I was the receiving end of waves after waves of sabotage. I went from having Zero in the Body Hunter Achievement to 70 in just 2 days and 1 thing I notice: When i had Spys "defending" in the village the Sabotage was a success, BUT if I had No Spys "Defending" Homeguard Prop each time, It was like i had a 100% Anti-Sabotage. But only if I didn't have any Spys. At soon i trained one, the sabotage was a success until he die and again went back to 100% Anti-Sabotage.

Exchange never prop, it was a lot of Spys attacks.

Now the Attacker always have the advantage??? I dunno about that, there is plenty of times i Spied on somebody and 75 % of my Spy's die or got a "Blood" Report.


They way I see it is, the actual attacking and defending heavily favors the defender so why not let the attacker have the spy advantage.

Lady Hawk

I like the spy set up the way it is. There are advantages and disadvantages, which is the way it should be.


From what I am experiencing, the defender has the upper hand, but so many spies die as well. doesn't make sense for 2 of 4 spies to die from 3 spies attacking you


Some valid points:

@Tokano , agree something is wrong win pacts are made to not use Sabotage. Obviously the majority of the player base doesn't like how this feature currently works. The idea of Sabotage is interesting, but the system is broken. I would rather send mass catapults instead.

@PhilRo9 , the spy system needs to be explained in detail, just like the battle system video. It's frustrating when the attacker sends 4-5 waves of spies to guarantee a green report and there is no defense to this you can't stack up spies. In the TW1 scout system, you could stack scouts and defend. I agree that if your Spies are better trained (Tavern Level) they should be able to defend vs less experienced spies (Lower Tavern Level)

@Necromonger , agree the system is so inconsistent. Why have 100% success vs Sabotage? When you don't have a spy to disable the "bomb" so to speak. Btw, does this only happen with Lvl 15 Tavern?

@trevpoloking , Information about should never be easily given or gained. Most major battles were won on how much information they had before the battle took place. Right now the attack ALWAYS has more information than the defender.

@Lady Hawk , explain please? As my post states Advantage = Attacker and Disadvantage = Defender, ie.. not a balanced system.

@Icedragon , When does the defender have the upper hand? Reread the OP.

Lady Hawk

As a defender there has been a lot of times My 4 have stopped 5 from getting a report. I have also gotten reports on the attackers village when theirs do get a report.


I mean it works both ways Deric its not like only certain people get the advantage if you aren't active enough to be the aggressor thats not the developers fault especially when defending is already skewed one way, in all honesty the spies are one thing about this game I feel they shouldnt change. If they do they should make attacking troops stronger then.