QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Jul 2 2009, 03:07 AM)

Putting aside the problems I have with realism with any sort of DEFCON manipulation (high to low at least when already at war), 'Freeze DEFCON Level' radically changes how nations try to survive nuclear war. The standard tactic is to stay at DEFCON 1 and avoid collection in nuclear anarchy. It is part of why many nations maintain significant warchests (once free of war they can take the remainder of their warchest rebuild a bit of infrastructure and collect). Now, one lucky roll of the dice by your enemy and you are effectively hamstrung. We're talking about something that will potentially cost larger nations tens of millions of dollars and much of their rebuilding funds. That seems overly harsh.
The nation can still stay in DEFCON 1 though if frozen, and still avoid collection in nuclear anarchy, once free of war they can still use their warchest to rebuild and collect, they would just have to collect taxes in DEFCON 1, which (-4 happiness) is really not the end of the world... I wouldn't call -4 happiness being hamstrung.
The real danger of this op comes in the double whammy of having both the DEFCON ops (switch and freeze) hit you at once, which may bring up a situation (frozen in DC5) where collection in Nuclear Anarchy might be needed in order to not get destroyed.
It would use up both your defensive slots for the day though, so it would mean no chance of copping other spy ops (tax rate switched, nukes swiped etc), and if your spy defence was solid you'd have a good chance of blocking at least one of the ops.
However, there is a possibility obviously of being dead unlucky and copping the switch all the way to DC5, and then the freeze in one day, and for that reason the ops will probably rise again in price. So it won't just be 'one lucky roll' it will be two very lucky rolls, for considerable financial outlay, with a high price of failure.
QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Jul 2 2009, 03:07 AM)

I have a similar complaint about 'Sabotage IRS Proficiency' (against putting the realism of such a thing aside), though with a basement of 20%, it isn't nearly as harsh.
The basement is now 23% for nations without the SSS, and 25% for those with the SSS.
QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Jul 2 2009, 03:07 AM)

'Destroy Land' will affect everything from defensive strength, to the ability to conduct naval operations ("no navy, no problem, I'll just spy away his land until he can't hurt me"), to the ability to conduct/resist spy operations and perhaps even hurt collections. The potential for abuse if this attack kills too much land too quickly is just too far reaching.
The land cap for destroying is currently 10miles per day. It might be changed slightly or randomisation added, but it won't increase much past that if at all.
QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Jul 2 2009, 03:07 AM)

It's not clear here if the new attacks will be available to nations wanting to perform spy operations against a nation in Peace Mode. If so, I would strongly protest the move.
Because of the changes to some ops that require a collection to change them, Once this update is made, the only operation which will be able to be performed on, or by, peace mode nations, will be gather intelligence.
QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Jul 2 2009, 03:07 AM)

I honestly never understood why 'Destroy Defending Tanks' was even a spy attack option. Making it more powerful only makes it more...odd. Be that as it may, not knowing what the specific caps are makes me very leery what such attacks will do. Indeed, I could see someone deciding it was a better tactic to leave all their troops and tanks on defense and instead use spies to attack and inflict damage against an enemy instead in offensive action. That changes the game in a rather negative way to me.
The old cap was 50tanks... which when some nations have 20,000 tanks was obviously too low.
The new cap is 10% of tanks, so to eat through a defenders stockpile using only spies will take some time.
QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Jul 2 2009, 03:07 AM)

This one I don't so much object to save for this: nukes will be disappearing at a much higher rate during wars. For example, let's say I'm in 1 offensive war and 2 defensive wars. I will be able to conduct 2+3=5 spy operations. Where before I might try once or twice to spy away nukes, and would likely spread my attacks among the nations I'm at war with, now I can put 2 attacks each on 2 nations and still have a third attack to play with elsewhere. Now expand the number of nations at war to a couple hundred on each side with interlocking conflicts and barring cash flow problems, nations are much more routinely getting hit with two spy attacks than was previously the case.
I understand the objective--create more opportunities for a greater variety of spy attacks to take place. I would argue that what's more likely is that the 2-3 that give the max effectiveness (like destroying nukes) will just be performed more often.
For this one, we will have to see how it plays out. In the past there were 2-3 spy ops that were used, and the rest barely touched. With this update there are many more options, hopefully, users will be spoilt for choice, and some choices are very expensive high risk, high reward ops, so cash flow problems, could well be a reality.