"You seem to assume I haven't read the pdf, and are therefore slightly annoyed and dismissive. I have read the spy section, and there was nothing I deemed relevant there. "
I didnt assumed it, just said manual have info on a subject, covering some of rised questions. I couldnt know if you did read it or not ofc. Tho its quite weird to skip a explanation about agents bonus as irrelevant, then ask stuff like "A threshold where spying becomes more effective. ".
"Also you said there was a new rule to exclude current research from being stolen by agents. Well, I'm playing with 1.50 standard rules and that "behavior" is not in effect as I've spied techs from the same field I'm currently researching. "
No, i said there is old rule "by default player cant steal a tech from the same field that player is researching now.". 1.50s is using new rule tho, "player cant steal a tech that player is researching now.", my using of "by default" could be confusing here, my bad, should been "in classic" instead.
"Why do you cherry pick my comments like your last quote? Sure, you covered all contingencies with your first comment, maybe...
As you see, this is what I wrote: "On impossible maybe the AI gets free spies, or simply it's production is so massive it can produce lots of spies very quickly." "
Suppose ill write: "Maybe you spent all that day throwing rocks into passers-by, or spent at least part of it using gog forums instead". The fact of second part of sentence being true doesnt justify groundless of first part of it. Moreother, the second part also not follow from first one. Both "maybe" parts are not based on something, and not required, while both "or" parts are correct. There was no point to quote a second part there, its viable.