Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: raise or uncap limits on spy ops
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Community Structure > Suggestion Box
Pages: 1, 2
Jinnai
The caps were placed long ago during an age when CN was not so big. The limits now make most of those options completely worthless, especially as you only have 2 spy options/day total on one nation. Removing or seriously raising the cap (and i do mean seriously raising it) would make some of them more viable in certain circumstances. Take FE:
QUOTE
Destroy Defending Tanks (Max 50) = $200,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)

Now for most nations except those at the very bottom (which with the new starting funds is much lower) 50 tanks is laughable, literally. Now then if it were instead based upon a formula such as:
CODE
Tanks Destroyed = (NS/200) + (Current Defending Tanks/95) (round up)

It would be more useful. Let's take my current stats FE.

NS: 46,520.321
Tanks: 7,115

Plugging that in we get:
CODE
Tanks Destroyed = (46520.321/100) + (7115/90)
544.25 = 465.2 + 79.05


Which means 545 tanks would be destroyed. Not a major hit, but for $246,520.32 its more appealing than 50 tanks.
Loxley
Approved for Discussion.
evilgm
I think that raising the caps would be a good idea. However, I don't think that the caps should be based upon nation strength, or at least, not nation strength alone. The strength of a nation has little to do with the potency of their spy networks. Look at Israel and Cuba in RL. Both are small, but both have very capable services. Perhaps what would be a better tack would be to have it be based upon the number of intel agency improvements as well as the CIA wonder first and foremost, and then be based upon your number of spies, and then be based upon nation strength.

Alternatively, you could just uncap the number of spies someone is allowed to have and then have spy attacks be based upon spy versus spy, as well as the improvement/wonder/gov't type modifiers.
Jack Shepard
QUOTE (evilgm @ Apr 23 2009, 11:04 PM) *
I think that raising the caps would be a good idea. However, I don't think that the caps should be based upon nation strength, or at least, not nation strength alone. The strength of a nation has little to do with the potency of their spy networks. Look at Israel and Cuba in RL. Both are small, but both have very capable services. Perhaps what would be a better tack would be to have it be based upon the number of intel agency improvements as well as the CIA wonder first and foremost, and then be based upon your number of spies, and then be based upon nation strength.

Alternatively, you could just uncap the number of spies someone is allowed to have and then have spy attacks be based upon spy versus spy, as well as the improvement/wonder/gov't type modifiers.


But those alreayd play a part in whether the action will already suceed or fail.

IMO it just needs to be based on how many tanks you have.

Maybe just up to 10% of your tanks...
evilgm
QUOTE (Jack Shepard @ Apr 24 2009, 12:23 AM) *
But those alreayd play a part in whether the action will already suceed or fail.

IMO it just needs to be based on how many tanks you have.

Maybe just up to 10% of your tanks...

Jack, I understand that the number of intel agencies and such already play into the overall calculations. What I am suggesting is that the calculations be revised to affect caps on things like tanks destroyed.

Also the idea of destroying a percentage of your tanks flies in the face of reason. If I have 15K tanks, and you manage to get off a spy attack. Why is it that you could destroy 1,500 of them when if I had only 1,000 tanks, you could only destroy 100? That doesn't work too well for me. I like sheer numbers, not percentages.
Jinnai
QUOTE (Jack Shepard @ Apr 24 2009, 12:23 AM) *
But those alreayd play a part in whether the action will already suceed or fail.

IMO it just needs to be based on how many tanks you have.

Maybe just up to 10% of your tanks...

I specifically devised the formula to make certain that you didn't get to the point you couldn't get rid of all of one's tanks. If you have a straight % you could get rid of them for infinity and never truly get rid of the last one.
Jack Shepard
QUOTE (Jinnai @ Apr 24 2009, 03:45 AM) *
I specifically devised the formula to make certain that you didn't get to the point you couldn't get rid of all of one's tanks. If you have a straight % you could get rid of them for infinity and never truly get rid of the last one.


Well... I don't think you should be able to wipe out 100% of someones tanks with just one spy op alone... Only through all combined battle options should it be possible.

BTW, The caps on tanks destroyed in CMs & Bombing attacks probably also needs to be raised or made to a percentage... they are far too low... What can you take out with 2 CMs, 2 Bombing runs and a spy op? 110tanks? crazy low.

QUOTE (evilgm @ Apr 24 2009, 01:19 AM) *
Jack, I understand that the number of intel agencies and such already play into the overall calculations. What I am suggesting is that the calculations be revised to affect caps on things like tanks destroyed.


They may already do so and it just may be that with the cap so low at the moment any successful attack would always net you the max 50cap.

I'd be okay with the number of tanks destroyed being dependent on what spy odds you had, I'm just talking about the where to set the cap here.

For example
-If you had a max cap of 10%, and you had 90% odds, if you succeed maybe you destroy 9% of the tanks.
-If you had a max cap of 10%, and you had 40% odds, if you cudeed you destroy 4% of the tanks etc.

As I said, the word 'max' before 50 in the current cap indicates to me something like this may already be in there, the cap is just too low.

QUOTE (evilgm @ Apr 24 2009, 01:19 AM) *
Also the idea of destroying a percentage of your tanks flies in the face of reason. If I have 15K tanks, and you manage to get off a spy attack. Why is it that you could destroy 1,500 of them when if I had only 1,000 tanks, you could only destroy 100? That doesn't work too well for me. I like sheer numbers, not percentages.


Well fairness in gameplay > realism

But I could think of many scenarios where it could be plausible, for example if you have 15k tanks vs 1ktanks, the spies at 15k level will be more advanced (more tech) and more numerous.

So, the spies at 15k may use detonation weapons to destroy the the tanks, taking out a max of 1500. Wheras if you only had 1000tanks, you also likely have less spies, which are less advanced (less tech) so they may not bother with riskier/more skilled/more destructive approaches and just infiltrate the compound and disable 100 or so etc.
Count Rupert
The problem is, in the real world spies would never be used against a target like tanks. Tanks are too dispersed and the unit doing the sabotage too small. If an army had 15,000 tanks it's not as if they would all be at the same location for someone to be able to destroy 1500 of them. The kills you get now from spies is hard to see from a realsim standpoint. If you were going to infiltrate enemy lines, you would target more vulnerable targets that would affect fighting strength as a whole, like fuel storage and ammo supplies. Maybe spy attacks on tanks shouldn't on the tanks themselves but on their availability to reflect attacks on fuel/ammo supply lines. Then percentages could be used. A nation with 15,000 tanks wouldn't necessarily lose 1500 tanks but have not available for use for 24 hours to reflect distrubtions in needed supplies to operate said tanks.
Jinnai
Count Rupert, while that may be more realistic, it would involve a lot more programing for little gain. CN isn't 100% realistic. If it were, well nukes wouldn't be flying all the time.
Count Rupert
QUOTE (Jinnai @ Apr 24 2009, 02:09 AM) *
Count Rupert, while that may be more realistic, it would involve a lot more programing for little gain. CN isn't 100% realistic. If it were, well nukes wouldn't be flying all the time.


I realize the game isn't 100% realistic. I don't think I suggested it was or needed to be or that my suggestion was meant to make it more realistic. What I did say is possible within the framework on the game. We already have a database field that distinguishs total forces from those deployed. All that would be needed is one the game used to track forces not usable. Every game makes decisions as to what it wishes to mimic from RL and at what level. The current system mimics that sabotage is done by very small teams behind enemy lines which it is. Within the framework of the game, rather than do what I descripted which granted would be more involved, it's the KIS principle and you lose a handful of tanks to reflect the work of a small band. That's the level admin decided on. What you want to do is change that to impact the larger players more. And you want to retain a type of fixed loss aspect. Since your formula calls the use of NS it means it's possible to create situations that a nation's entire tank force is wiped out. While realism in a game isn't necessary, it's nice if the elements are at least plausible which I don't see yours being. Even if one had the tanks to lose, losing hundreds and hundreds of tanks to sabotage just doesn't seem plausible on it's face. I only suggested an alternative that allowed an element of what you are seeking.

thedestro
The limits do need to be changed. Even when the spy ops first came out, I never considered using the Cruise Missile or Tank ops.

Your formula doesn't seem bad, but I think it's lacking some logical basis for it.
Oktavia
The perfect answer would be to make tech scale with spies against cruise missiles & tanks.
Jinnai
QUOTE (thedestro @ Apr 24 2009, 04:43 PM) *
The limits do need to be changed. Even when the spy ops first came out, I never considered using the Cruise Missile or Tank ops.

Your formula doesn't seem bad, but I think it's lacking some logical basis for it.

The idea was that it was based somewhat on the total number the enemy had, ie the more of something there is, the easier it is to destroy it. Total NS was a way to figure out some way if there was a small number of tanks left how a group of spies could go in and remove them all and we wouldn't be left with infinitly decreasing numbers, but never destroying those last few tanks. As such, that part does not contain a logical basis, but was meant to get the job done.
QUOTE (Oktavia @ Apr 24 2009, 05:48 PM) *
The perfect answer would be to make tech scale with spies against cruise missiles & tanks.

Tech is already overpowered in warfare. There is no need to make it moreso. What we need is possibly some alternative to NS that isn't tech. Maybe population density.
uaciaut
Yes to your suggestion but for those values i'd raise the price a bit.
NeoGandalf
Slightly radical, but how about each nation has a limit of 2 outgoing spy ops per nation per day, but once a spy is caught (whether successful or not) then that nation cannot be spied on again by that nation that day and the attacking nations odds of success are reduced by, say, 20% for total failure, 10% for success but caught, for the next 7 days.

You're all gonna hate this aren't you...
Poyplemonkeys
QUOTE (NeoGandalf @ Apr 27 2009, 03:20 PM) *
Slightly radical, but how about each nation has a limit of 2 outgoing spy ops per nation per day, but once a spy is caught (whether successful or not) then that nation cannot be spied on again by that nation that day and the attacking nations odds of success are reduced by, say, 20% for total failure, 10% for success but caught, for the next 7 days.

You're all gonna hate this aren't you...


Makes sense to me. If you catch a spy you'll definitely be on a heightened alert for more.
evilgm
I think that we should be allowed to do 2 spy ops per nation that we are at war with per day. Outside of opponents upon which we have declared war, we should be limited to 2 total spy ops.
Canehda
QUOTE (evilgm @ Apr 28 2009, 06:14 AM) *
I think that we should be allowed to do 2 spy ops per nation that we are at war with per day. Outside of opponents upon which we have declared war, we should be limited to 2 total spy ops.



I like that idea along with the original Idea...

I mean seriously... 50 tanks is ... uhm... how can I say this without swearing.... Destroying mearly 50 tanks is kife, and not useful...



Also why do spies always gota destroy stuff? How about an option to make your opponent buy max troops?
(can you tell i'm tired of GGA not buying more troops?)

Like war when they don't buy more military its like ... no fun... YaY cruise missiles and air attack wars.... *rolls eyes*

YAH!, Lets both take approx the same amount of damage every update, that way we both loose the same amount of infrastructure! ...
...
..
.
>_< *frustrated*
Jinnai
Another idea is to base it on percentages, but with a base minimum number. Say destroying tanks will destroy 5-25% of defending tanks, but a minimum of 50 upon success.

Another alternative is:
CODE
Tanks Destroyed = (Pop Density*3) + (Current Defending Tanks/90) (round up)

So For example

Pop density is 173.92
Tanks is 4031
CODE
Tanks Destroyed = (173.92 * 2) + (4031/90)
390 (rounded up) = 347.84 + 41.789


This would use more realistic mechanics (well somewhat more). Tighter population means items must be stocked closer together which means it is in theory easier to destroy more. A randomized function can be added as well, but if so, it should have a base minimum, such as:
CODE
Tanks Destroyed = RANDNUM (.75, 1.25) * (Pop Density*2) + (Current Defending Tanks/90) (round up, minimum 25)
Zeta Defender
For the Spy Cap Issue, how about at least 2 spy slots per war slot occupied + 2 extra spy slots for mercenaries nations who attack others for their clan and for nations not at war to still use the feature.

So if a nation has 6 war slots filled, that nation has 14 spy slots that can be used that day. As for how many spies attacks one nation can receive, either leave it at 2 or raise it to 4 to open up new usage for the weapon.
Jinnai
increasing the slots does not address the issue at hand. Current caps make some spy ops useless when they might not be so. Increasing the number of slots is a separate issue, one I support, but one that increasing their number would not address the issue at hand here.
SyndicatedINC
QUOTE (Jinnai @ May 20 2009, 04:23 AM) *
increasing the slots does not address the issue at hand. Current caps make some spy ops useless when they might not be so. Increasing the number of slots is a separate issue, one I support, but one that increasing their number would not address the issue at hand here.


So very true, as the very idea of a coordinated blitz on enemy spy capacity is pointless in the current format, right before update swap enemy threat level, then assassinate spies, right after update assassinate spies twice more, you accomplish nothing as your opponenet will merely swap it back and buy more spies. The very intent of those ops (to make future ops easier) simply can not occur due to the spy slot issue.

The idea of spy slots dependent upon wars is interesting, however i think tieing them to each individual war should be of more importance. Say you get 2 spy ops per day plus an additional 1 per day per opponenet that can ONLY be used against that opponent. Thus in theory you could use up to 3 attacks against any ONE person that you are at war with, or 2 attacks against any 1 person that you are not at war with. In keeping with this suggestion your defensive slots are not filled by the 1 bonus slot granted for people at war with you. So basically each war grants you one additional offensive and defensive slot against the specific nation that you are at war with. To prevent confusion of slot availability, these wartime slots are the first used/filled whenever these two nations engage in ops versus one another during the war.

As for increasing the number of slots (and making some ops such as swap threat level more useful) how about if the number of defensive slots was tied to a nations threat level? Say 2 slots for a nation at threat level Severe, and an additional 1 or 2 for the other levels. This would make swap threat level a VERY useful opening salvo for coordinated spy ops.

Swap threat level to create an additional bunch of slots, then assassinate spies in droves, leaving an exposed spy defense immediately afterwards for the next day.

For those wishing to include intel agencies and the CIA more, these additional slots could be modified by those improvements and wonders. Say intel agencies reduce the number of additional defensive slots of your threat level by 20% per agency, or the CIA can secretly lie about the threat swap (as in it reports a success even if the threat level was not changed or prevents the first change etc).
evilgm
I think it would be far easier to segregate war time and non war time spying. Non-war-time spying would be limited to 2 total per day, and war-time would be limited to 2 actions PER battle opponent. That would make spying really go into high gear.
Jinnai
Here is the proposal I made a while back, which is still open, dealing with spy slots:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=50048

I'd rather not have thread get derailed when there is an appropriate thread already to discuss the slot number issue.
heggo
Lots of spy ops are pointless though. For instance, changing a nation's desired religion? Who cares?
Jinnai
QUOTE (heggo @ May 24 2009, 09:29 PM) *
Lots of spy ops are pointless though. For instance, changing a nation's desired religion? Who cares?

Certain spy ops could become non-pointless. That's why.
mike1921
Yes, we should raise the limit.
Mirreille
I would be in favor of raising the limit, even removing it, if each mission attempted against a nation per day became progressively harder to accomplish. Don't let the attacker know how many have been tried already that day either, let them find out the hard way. After all, spies are supposed to be covert, and things blowing up left and right, or being stolen have a tendency to get the attention of the local security forces. I am not sure what the exact penalty for each subsequent mission ought to be, but I am sure Admin can find a value he likes.
Haflinger
The biggest problem is not that there are too few spy ops per day (there are), but that some missions are incredibly more useful than others.

Specifically, Target Weapons of Mass Destruction and Gather Intel. If you uncap spy ops, people are going to do a Gather Intel first to see what the target nation's warchest is like, and then start the mass-spying of nukes.

Destroying nukes is inherently more useful than destroying tanks, it doesn't matter how many you kill. You can only buy one nuke a day, they're time-limited; you can buy as many tanks as you want, up to the max, instantly. If you could keep on spying out nukes until you failed on one, you'd be doing it until either the target ran out or you failed on one.
evilgm
QUOTE (Haflinger @ May 30 2009, 01:40 AM) *
Destroying nukes is inherently more useful than destroying tanks, it doesn't matter how many you kill. You can only buy one nuke a day, they're time-limited; you can buy as many tanks as you want, up to the max, instantly. If you could keep on spying out nukes until you failed on one, you'd be doing it until either the target ran out or you failed on one.

+1 Halflinger. We cannot uncork spy ops for this reason alone. However, I think that the idea of letting nations be targeted by many spy attacks per day as useful, so long as each attempt lowered the chance of success, and there was no way to figure out how many spy attempts had been made against said nation.
Jinnai
QUOTE (evilgm @ May 30 2009, 12:58 AM) *
+1 Halflinger. We cannot uncork spy ops for this reason alone. However, I think that the idea of letting nations be targeted by many spy attacks per day as useful, so long as each attempt lowered the chance of success, and there was no way to figure out how many spy attempts had been made against said nation.

It's more useful, if someone has nukes. If they don't, well, targeting the WoMD isn't going to be very useful. However, right now, other than Defcon switiching (which if its at 4 its usually not worth switching) and gather intel, very little is worth attempting due to in-game inflation, which continues even as I type this. However uncapping them makes some operations useful sometimes. Targeting tanks if you could destroy more than 50 would allow you maybe go from getting less than 50% GA odds to more than 50.
evilgm
how about some artificial limits? We could cap the WoMD targeting and DEFCON targeting to 2 per day, but let some other things go uncapped, such as destroying tanks or CMs.
youwish959
You should have 2 base spy operations, then for every war declared (with the first as an exception) you should have 2 more.

So basically it would be:

Peace time: 2 total spy operations
1st war declared: 2 total spy operations
2nd war declared: 4 total spy operations
3rd war declared: 6 total spy operations
4th war declared: 8 total spy operations
5th war declared: 10 total spy operations
6th war declared: 12 total spy operations

However, this could lead to abuse by a nation declaring on three targets and using all of the spy operations on one single target. To combat this I suggest we compartmentalize the slots. So you can only use 2 spy operations per target.
Jinnai
QUOTE (youwish959 @ May 30 2009, 09:31 PM) *
You should have 2 base spy operations, then for every war declared (with the first as an exception) you should have 2 more.

So basically it would be:

Peace time: 2 total spy operations
1st war declared: 2 total spy operations
2nd war declared: 4 total spy operations
3rd war declared: 6 total spy operations
4th war declared: 8 total spy operations
5th war declared: 10 total spy operations
6th war declared: 12 total spy operations

However, this could lead to abuse by a nation declaring on three targets and using all of the spy operations on one single target. To combat this I suggest we compartmentalize the slots. So you can only use 2 spy operations per target.

That doesn't address the issue, making items spy ops that are capped worth using by uncapping/significantly raising them and I had a similar proposal elsewhere.
Londo Mollari
Limits are fine IMO.

Missions need changed to be more potent/interesting. Some suggestions:


* Incite Government Propaganda (New government randomly chosen, anarchy an option) = $100,000 + (3 x enemy nation strength)
* Incite Religious Propaganda (New desired religion randomly chosen) = $100,000 + (3 x enemy nation strength)
* Change DEFCON Level (New level randomly chosen) = $150,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)
* Change Threat Level (New level randomly chosen) = $150,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Gather Intelligence (See money reserves, non-secret trade partners, etc...) = $200,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Defending Tanks (Max 25%) = $200,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Cruise Missiles (Max 25%) = $200,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Assassinate Enemy Spies (Max 10%) = $250,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Steal Money Reserves (Max 5%) = $300,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)
* Steal Technology (Max 5*techbonus) = $300,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Nuclear Weapons (Max 1) = $500,000 + (15 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Infrastructure (Max 10*techbonus) = $500,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please happy.gif
Jinnai
QUOTE (Londo Mollari @ Jun 3 2009, 01:23 PM) *
* Incite Government Propaganda (New government randomly chosen, anarchy an option) = $100,000 + (3 x enemy nation strength)
* Incite Religious Propaganda (New desired religion randomly chosen) = $100,000 + (3 x enemy nation strength)
* Change DEFCON Level (New level randomly chosen) = $150,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)
* Change Threat Level (New level randomly chosen) = $150,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Gather Intelligence (See money reserves, non-secret trade partners, etc...) = $200,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Defending Tanks (Max 25%) = $200,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Cruise Missiles (Max 25%) = $200,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Assassinate Enemy Spies (Max 10%) = $250,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Steal Money Reserves (Max 5%) = $300,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)
* Steal Technology (Max 5*techbonus) = $300,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Nuclear Weapons (Max 1) = $500,000 + (15 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Infrastructure (Max 10*techbonus) = $500,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please happy.gif

With the exception of technology, if they are max numbers that's fine, but I still prefer some kind of random number. Tanks and CMs might still be too low though (for CMs I'd say anything that doesn't have a chance of destroying the whole lot is too low).

Also if we are to remove 1 item we should replace it with another of equal power (but more usefulness)
Loxley
Many of the outdated caps that have been discussed in this thread, as well as the number of spy operations per day (touched on here and elsewhere), are currently being reviewed and tested in Tournament Edition.

Here is the current information index section on Spies from Tournament Edition (changes are in green).
QUOTE
Spies - Spies are secret agents in the game that have the ability to spy, harass, perform sabotage, and engage in acts of terror against other nations without having to declare war. Spies cost $10,000 each to purchase and all nations start out with a limit of 50 spies plus 100 x Intelligence Agencies (+250 with CIA wonder). Nations can conduct up to two attacking spy operations per day (+1 per active war) and nations can be attacked in up to two spy operations per day. Nations may only spy on nations within their strength ranking unless the target nation is currently at war with the spy attacker. Aside from being killed during a mission and from assassination, spies are also vulnerable to defeat alerts where up to 5 spies can be killed. Spy Operations have four possible results based on the results of the calculations of the operation odds . These results include 1) Mission success and not caught 2) Mission success but identity revealed 3) Mission failure but not caught 4) Mission failure and identity revealed. The following spy operations are available in the game:

* Destroy Cruise Missiles (Max 5) = $10,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Defending Tanks (Max 10%) = $10,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Land (Max 10) = $10,000 + (3 x enemy nation strength)
* Incite Government Propaganda (New desired government randomly chosen) = $10,000 + (3 x enemy nation strength) [Defender required to collect taxes to change]
* Incite Religious Propaganda (New desired religion randomly chosen) = $10,000 + (3 x enemy nation strength) [Defender required to collect taxes to change]
* Change Threat Level (New level randomly chosen) = $15,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength) [Defender required to collect taxes to change]
* Change DEFCON Level (New level randomly chosen) = $15,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)
* Freeze DEFCON Level = $15,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength) [Defender required to collect taxes to change]
* Gather Intelligence (See money reserves, non-secret trade partners, etc...) = $20,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Assassinate Enemy Spies (Max 20) = $25,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Technology (Max 10) = $30,000 + (2 x enemy nation strength)
* Sabotage IRS Proficiency (New tax rate randomly produced, 1-5% lower than old tax rate) = $10,000 + (20 x enemy nation strength x enemy number of days inactive) [Defender required to collect taxes to change]
* Destroy Money Reserves (Max 5% or 1 Million) = $30,000 + (15 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Infrastructure (Max 10) = $50,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)
* Destroy Nuclear Weapons (Max 1) = $50,000 + (15 x enemy nation strength)

Spy operation odds are determined by the following formulas:

* Attacking spies chances of success are determined by (number of spies) + (technology level / 20)
* The defending nation's counter intelligence systems are determined by (number of spies) + (technology level / 20) + (land total / 70). Threat level modifiers are also taken into account for the defender.

If your spies are exposed during a spy operation a summary of the spy attack will be sent to the defender via private message with your ruler name revealed as the sender of the message. A summary of the operation will also be added to the "Exposed Spy Operations Across the Globe" screen for all nations to view. If your spies are not exposed during a spy operation a summary of the spy attack will still be sent to the defender via private message however the sender of the message will appear as "Unknown Sender" and your spy operation will not be displayed in the "Exposed Spy Operations Across the Globe" screen.

Spy operations are stored in the game for a period of 30 days. You may review your spy operation results by clicking the 'Spy Operations' link on the left navigation menu. This screen will detail the spy operations where you were the aggressor in the spy operation. This screen does not detail spy operations that you have defended against. Nations that are in Anarchy may conduct spy operations at double the spy operation cost.


How these numbers would differ once implemented in standard:
- Dollar base values for spies and spy ops are reduced in TE by a factor of ten.

- So for example, Spies in Standard cost $100,000 and the Destroy Cruise Missiles op, would cost $100,000 + (1 x enemy nation strength).

- The Destroy Money reserves max cap is also reduced by a factor of ten (in Standard, the Max cap will be $10million).

---

None of these figures are final as yet, everything is still being tested and a balance needs to be found for some ops on their costs vs effect, but feel free to add feedback, and if you have a tournament edition nation feel free to try out the changes.
Jinnai
QUOTE
Nations can conduct up to two attacking spy operations per day (+1 per active war) and nations can be attacked in up to two spy operations per day.
Not sure about this as it may lead to too many waisted slots. I think 2/day/nation and either a nation can perform only 2 operations of a specific kind each day and/or be target by 2 of 1 type of spy ops/day.
energizer
im all for the current changes that are being introduced into the spy portion of the game, its been needing a good overlook.

there are however a couple things I would like to see with the new spy operations :

- Choosing preferance (suggested before)
Where you can choose if you would rather keep your identity or have a successful mission IE:
1)mission successful
2)mission successful, Identity revealed
3)mission failure, Identity kept
4)utter failure

Allow 2 and 3 be switched by a nation.

and I personally think the destroy land, tech and infra are to low as right now to warrent any serious consideration (seeing as how a nation can lose as much as 500 infra in a single round of attacks)

I think if you are going to change those spy operations, those would be the best to use a random factor on (land for example could destroy as little as 20 or as much as 50)

On a side note, I would like to see the 'destroy tech' option changed to 'steal tech', because as of now, no one would ever use the destroyed tech option unless it meant the defending nation would be under the neccassary amount to be able to purchase nuclear weapons, which is beyond rare.
Big Z
Because Freeze Defcon requires the nation to collect before changing the defcon status again, I think the cost factor should be higher than the change defcon, since it is infinitely more useful strategically, especially in wartime.

Personally, I think
QUOTE
* Freeze DEFCON Level = $150,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength X enemy number of days inactive) [Defender required to collect taxes to change]
would be a more appropriate change.
Loxley
energizer, your post did remind me that it had been suggested before, admin looked into how feasible it would be today.

Adding a preference/choice flag is undesirable, as it requires extra db fields and writing an extra screen for the user to set and modify the preference.

So, what we have gone with it is this:
If you spy on someone you are not at war with, the order now will be:
1)mission successful
2)mission failure, Identity kept
3)mission successful, Identity revealed
4)utter failure

If you spy on someone you are at war with, the order now will be:
1)mission successful
2)mission successful, Identity revealed
3)mission failure, Identity kept
4)utter failure

Basically, when not at war, your identity is prioritised. When at war, identity is less relevant and so mission success is prioritised.

This has been implemented in TE and will be rolled out in Standard with the other changes.

Also speaking to admin today and he is open to randomising the caps on land/tech/infra, so we will take a closer look at that in the coming days.

---

Big Z, all spy ops are still being tested and dollar amounts still not final. We will take another look at the cost of the freeze defcon op and crunch some more numbers.
ender land
That is a really good change.
ChairmanHal
My only feedback on this topic is that great care should be taken that warfare doesn't become simply a matter of who's got the best spy odds. Much of what I've seen in the most recent update makes me concerned that spy ops will consist of a whole laundry list of things that spies (or even Special Ops) do not do in RL (not even in their day dreams in boring meetings at Langley, VA) and it will unbalance the game.
Loxley
QUOTE (ChairmanHal @ Jul 2 2009, 01:19 AM) *
My only feedback on this topic is that great care should be taken that warfare doesn't become simply a matter of who's got the best spy odds. Much of what I've seen in the most recent update makes me concerned that spy ops will consist of a whole laundry list of things that spies (or even Special Ops) do not do in RL (not even in their day dreams in boring meetings at Langley, VA) and it will unbalance the game.


Putting aside the realism aspect for the moment, please feel free to expand on the rest.

We're trying to take every care in this, which is why pretty much all SBox topics on spies have been looked over, and feedback is being taken on in threads such as this. I'm crunching numbers on a daily basis to try and ensure the new ops are balanced.

Are your main concerns the new spy ops? the new caps? something else? as I said feel free to expand, the more input and data we have to go on will hopefully ensure this update goes smoothly.
energizer
Ah, that is nice to know (about the mission result being self-prioritising).

Do have a question however;

will the defcon and threat level change op actually be random in the comming update? Or will it remain in its set order when changed?



Loxley
They will now be random, however they will be slightly weighted towards the 'green' end, and a new level will always be chosen.
energizer
Oh cool beans, liken the sound of this update so far biggrin.gif been awhile since I actually got excited about an update (think the last time was when admin finally allowed navies into the game).

and I maybe pressing my luck here, but dont suppose theres a chance to see a couple 'steal' ops eh? Such as steal tech, tanks, money etc... (of course being much more expencive then the destroyed counterpart, and less in terms of quantity recieved then if destroyed)
ChairmanHal
QUOTE (Loxley @ Jul 1 2009, 09:35 PM) *
Putting aside the realism aspect for the moment, please feel free to expand on the rest.

We're trying to take every care in this, which is why pretty much all SBox topics on spies have been looked over, and feedback is being taken on in threads such as this. I'm crunching numbers on a daily basis to try and ensure the new ops are balanced.

Are your main concerns the new spy ops? the new caps? something else? as I said feel free to expand, the more input and data we have to go on will hopefully ensure this update goes smoothly.


OK, let's look at the stuff that has been announced:
QUOTE
6-30-2009
- Coming in two weeks (on or after July 14, 2009) spy operations will receive a significant update. A summary of changes is as follows:

1. Three new spy operations, Freeze Defcon Level, Sabotage IRS Proficiency, and Destroy Land will been added.


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.

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.

'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.

QUOTE
2. The spy operations of Incite Government Propaganda, Incite Religious Propaganda, Sabotage IRS Proficiency, Change Threat Level, and Freeze DEFCON Level will require the defender to collect taxes before changing the individual settings that these spy operations effect. Given these upgrades in damage for these spy operations the only spy operation that will be available to peace mode nations will be the Gather Intelligence spy operation.


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.
QUOTE
3. Destroy Defending Tanks will destroy 10% of tanks rather than a flat limit of 50 and Destroy Technology, Destroy Infrastructure, and Destroy Money Reserves will have their caps increased.


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.

QUOTE
4. Nations will start each new day at midnight update with 2 attacking and 2 defending spy slots plus 1 attacking spy slot per active war that can be used only against their war opponents. Nations will continue to only receive two defending spy operations against them per day.


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.
Loxley
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.
Viluin
QUOTE (Londo Mollari @ Jun 3 2009, 03:23 PM) *
* Steal Money Reserves (Max 5%) = $300,000 + (5 x enemy nation strength)


There has to be a hard cap, stealing $50m from a nation with 1 billion dollars is not only ridiculous, but it's also open for abuse during peace time (rapidly transferring money from one nation to another, and it's not spy-slot filling if you're not in the same alliance).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.