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.