Currently the number of spy operations that are useful is small. Change DEFCON, target weapons of mass destruction and gather intelligence seem to be the main ones used. Nuclear war is becoming the norm in inter-alliance conflict and the prevalence of SDI's is increasing as alliances look to protect members from nuclear attacks as best they can.



I propose the addition of an new spy operation to weaken the effectiveness of an enemy SDI. The cost would be in line with the Target Weapons of Mass Destruction operation. The result of a successful operation would be a reduction in the odds that the enemy's SDI would be successful in thwarting the nuclear attack. Say, a drop from 60% to 30%. The reduction in effectiveness would last for one nuclear attack regardless of whether the attack is successful or not. This more accurately simulates your spies opening a small window of opportunity to get a nuke through the SDI system.



As stated in the current situation, there are only a few worthwhile spy operations in the game at present and over the past year or so nuclear warfare is becoming more common and the numbers of Manhattan Projects and SDI's is increasing as alliances implement programs that mandate these wonders be purchased as soon as possible.

This change would add a new dynamic to spy operations and nuclear warfare. As spies presently can destroy nuclear weapons and tamper with DEFCON systems it seems logical to me that those spies can tamper with a defence system like an SDI. At the moment, nuclear warfare against an SDI means people just keep firing nukes until one gets through. With this change nations can attempt to use spies to increase their chances of a successful nuclear attack giving nuclear warfare a new dimension with regards to espionage.

I believe the spy aspect of the game is one where the game can continue to develop and provide new ways to interact with enemy nations during war and this is one way to do that.

Edit: fixed tags

Edit: Amended resetting of SDI to normal 60% effectiveness from next update to after one nuclear attack, successful or otherwise.

You are overlooking some of the new spy ops that were recently added, which can be quite effective in the right hands, but this seems worth letting the players have a look at it. Approved for discussion.

OH NOES, NOT MY SDI!!!!!!!




Actually, I kinda like this suggestion. However instead of just a drop of that magnitude, how about it can be ran multiple times against a nation with a single success causing a decrease of say 15%.

Since a nation can be hit with 2 spy ops per day that means if you get hit with both, your sdi would go to 30% effectiveness instead of the normal 60%, but if only one hit, it would be 45%.

It adds a new level of strategy because you now have to choose if you are going to try and take away their nukes to save you some damage, or to reduce their SDIs effectiveness in order to increase the likelyhood that your nukes will hit thereby saving some wasted nukes.

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes.

I personally think the SDI is a terrible thing for CN and this would go at least some of the way to making it not kill nuclear war as much :\

If this is to be added, Id prefer it to be a random number between 1% and 10% chosen to decrease the odds of the SDI working per spy attack. So anywhere from a max of 20% decrease to a min of 2%.

I like this idea.

If it was a random number decrease, then it would need to stack until something happened other than update. Because lets face it, the difference between 60% and 58% means very little. whereas if it were stacking, 2% today, 4% tomorrow, 7% the next day, it would add up to an effective reduction.

The only other event that I could think of would be war expiration, however then you have the problem of what if the person who ran the op isn't the one involved in the war? Or what if multiple people are engaged and running the ops. You'd have to intruduce new database fields to keep track of which spy op occurred from what nation and when said war expires.

The easiest way to implement it from a coding perspective is to have the effects clear at midnight, and while i usually like the idea of a random decrease, it would need to be much larger because an avg of a 10% reduction (2 spy ops at 5% each) in an SDI isn't enough imo.

I have two suggestions:

(1) The count resets every time the defending nation collects taxes.

(2) The count resets every time time a nuke successfully hits a target.

The numbers would still need to be greater than 1% to 10% because you will still likely be nuked every day. Nobody is going to use a spy operation that would only increase their chance of hitting a target by as low as 1%. If you changed it to 10-15% then i'd say it would be good.

The reason I suggested a single, significant drop for the effectiveness of the SDI that was tampered with by enemy spies is to simulate the spies throwing a spanner in the works, so to speak. This would take a proportion of the SDI network offline and create "holes" in the defence network that would be signified by a drop in the percentage chance your SDI has of thwarting the nuclear attack.

The fast "repair" would be the SDI reverting back to its previous percentage chance of thwarting a nuclear attack at update. Kind of like your spies opening a small window of opportunity to get a nuke through the SDI shortly before the nuclear attack.

I think it would add an extra variable in nuclear warfare and the use of spies. I don't think it should be tied in to collection of taxes or anything like that as I don't think that fits in with the operation itself.

From 60 to 30? Come on. That would make SDI useless. From 60 to 40 sounds better.

It would make it half as effective, not useless. You also have to consider each nation can only be attacked by spies twice per day and that the spy operation is by no means a guaranteed success unless the target has a low level of spies. Anyone with nukes should have maximum spies or suffer the consequence.

The reduction in effectiveness needs to be significant otherwise the spy op, if successful, would still be pretty much useless and not worth the cash.

as a nation without a SDI but with alot of spies i support this idea

The SDI already has a hard time stopping a reasonable amount of nukes. I've seen nations go 4 nukes in a row with nothing happening and some go 15 without getting hit.

If we're tampering with the percentages in favor of being hit, I'd very much like for us to be able to improve the percentages as well, through the use of advanced technologies capable of destroying ICBMs. That way in the long run, the spy ops could reduce the nation back to their 65% or slightly lower if it's a competent opponent, and if the opponent isn't competent then not playing the game to improve their SDI's benefits would hurt them as spy ops significantly reduce their odds.

In my opinion, a spy op to attack the SDI would be highly beneficial, but at the same time there would need to be an effective counter-op, for example "sabotage launch systems" which would possibly half the chance of a successful nuke launch. That way the nukes and SDI would remain balanced in the event of each nation spying the other, you could sabotage launch if your SDI is compromized to even the odds. Any new attack added in this game needs to have a defense added in.

Thats overpowering the spy attack WAAAAAAY too much. It should be random between 1 and 10 but the decrease stacks every 2 days. So you can do a spy update blitz before update and after update doing a max decrease of 40% and a min of 4%. With the max being at 40%, it seems like a good spy attack. (im a bigger nation with nukes and a SDI and I hate nukes but yea this is a good spy attack just cuz you can take out other people :V)

There was a recent wonder proposal that would fill this need.

Also, I think there are probably already too many spy mission options as is.

I've seen people have 11 unsuccessful attempts to nuke someone in a row so I'm sure it evens out to 60% across the board. I know I have mixed results trying to get past an SDI.

I don't really see the need for a counter-operation to prevent a nuke launch as that is what the SDI already does. Add to that the ability to spy away 2 nukes per day at the moment and you see that the anti-nuke options are fairly well established. I just think is it not unreasonable that the same spies than can destroy a nuclear weapon and infiltrate a nation's DEFCON system could also tamper with the SDI too.

Also, as I said there is no guarantee your spy attack on an enemies SDI will be successful (most spy attacks at the level nations have an SDI are 50/50 roughly) but also that the subsequent nuclear launch still has a chance of being thwarted.

Perhaps, instead of the "hole" in the SDI network being repaired at the next update perhaps the hole is repaired after on nuclear attack on the nation with the compromised SDI whether it be successful or not?

I actually think the spy option makes things more interesting and unpredictable compared to a wonder with a blanket effect on SDI. If every nuclear capable nation gets the new wonder you proposed then we are back to where we are now, throwing rocks at houses until we finally break a window.

I completely agree with Tygaland... it's kind of silly how all SDIs have a 60% chance of blocking nukes. But instead of introducing a new spy op to vary the odds wouldn't it be easier and better to base the odds of blocking a nuke on the amount of tech you have?

more tech = higher chance of blocking a nuke

Makes sense, right?

I think you should play with the new spy operations that have been added recently before proposing more new ops; they're pretty freaking sweet, and adding more spy ops anytime soon (especially something as useful as SDI tampering) would just diminish their chance to gain acceptance.





In fact, nations can have eight nukes spied away per day now I believe (with the addition of a spy op for each war slot sometime last month), which when combined with the SDI itself is rather ridiculous. Of course, I feel that between the WRC and HNMS there are already strategies in place if you want to take advantage of them that allow for greater endurance during a nuclear skirmish; just because a WRC costs $150 million and the HNMS costs $25 doesn't mean we should have an option in the $2 to $5 million range (which is what a spy op would likely cost I imagine) that's similarly designed to lengthen nuclear capabilities.

I havent heard a good word from anybody about their SDI. I can tell you as of right now it isnt very effective. Snipers have the same kind of record as people launching nukes against them with many first attempts hitting the target. For $75m and the cost of 6 extra improvements I'd like it to have some sort of chance at blocking someones $500k nuke thanks very much and any extra weakening of this wonder should not be considered.

I haven't kept track of my offensive nukes, but my defensive nukes since buying the SDI resulted in

21 hits
34 blocks


Which is a block percentage of 61.8%

I would imagine most people with large data sets to calculate the odds with would result in about a 60% rate too.

Regarding the usefulness of the SDI, are you kidding me? Ask NPO if they think that the SDI is ineffective. Or any of the alliances that took thousands of nuke hits in the past war. The SDI is only ineffective on the defensive side, where it makes no difference essentially - the attackers will likely have a nearly unlimited nuke supply, whereas those nations defending have finite nukes. Having 20 nukes means that you can expect to only land 8 of them.

The SDI is already busted in favor of attackers, this would only serve to help defenders with well stocked spies/warchest to be able to actually effectively fight back (especially in light of the changes to allow nations one spy op additional vs all nations they are at war with).

Though for a 5-10% reduction it's hardly worth it, considering that the cost of the mission will be doubled, probably start out really high, and not have a very high success rate unless you have a large spy advantage anyways.

I would strongly suggest a reduction to 30% as the result of this spy op.

You are mistaken about this, the new rule regarding +1 spy op per war does not change the fact that you only have 2 defensive spy slots, so those new slots are far more likely to be useful for a defender or a nation going rogue.

Regarding the OP's suggestion, I would want to see what gets approved before making any judgement on whether it is a good effective spy op, but if you get the parameters right it could make for some interesting choices. The Devil is always in the details.

I don't see that as a valid reason not to add a perfectly good spy op to the game.



As with all things like this people focus on the bad days and forget the good. Overall you do have a 60% chance of blocking a nuke which is a significant chance and well worth the cost of the SDI wonder. I think the improvement purchases you add to the costs are disingenuous as most nations would have those 3 satellites and missile defences well before they consider purchasing an SDI.

I have made an amendment to the trigger for resetting the SDI back to 60% effectiveness. Instead of having to wait until next update for your SDI to return to normal functioning after a successful spy operation, the SDI will return to normal after one nuclear attack be it successful or otherwise.

That is, your enemy gets one chance to attack you with a nuclear weapon after they have weakened your SDI to 30% effectiveness. If the attack is still thwarted by the weakened SDI then your SDI will return to normal operation and your enemy will need to use the second spy attack to weaken your SDI and try again.

I think this makes the creation of a "hole" in the SDI network more reflective of a true spy operation that temporarily brings a defence network offline for a short period of time.

This is a fantastic idea. I support it 100%.

I would respectfully disagreement with your assessment. There are other ways to make the game more interesting and unpredictable without resorting to the standard and very predictable 800 "magic users" that every nation creates in mid-life whom can make nukes disappear, foul collections, kills tanks, lower DEFCONs even though the nation is still at war, make money burn into thin air and in general do things that go well beyond what is reasonable or realistic in the game.

Don't get me wrong, I think spies were a good addition to the game, but in all due candor I'm trying to play a nation simulation game, not a G.I. Joe the Movie simulation game.

I wouldn't anticipate spies would physically go to the enemy nation and start pulling out wires. Satellites and computers would run an SDI system and therefore any spy ops would be most likely jamming those systems from a remote location.

Given that MIRV missiles already exist in RL and have the benefits I described, I see no reason why that piece could not go forward. If things end up as you say with every nuke nation going to MIRVed missiles (even though every nuke nation doesn't have HNMS or WRC either and those are some pretty powerful wonders), then perhaps your idea in some form could be looked at in the future.

As some other people have suggested however, it would be a good idea to see what impact the current crop of new spy options has on the game over a longer term and then look at perhaps dropping some, altering them or adding others, including your suggestion.

Then, if it is "realism" you are after, your MIRV would be a new military weapon rather than a wonder.

I do agree that some spy ops should go. Destroying tanks, money and even infrastructure seem highly unlikey as spy operations but I do not see why that would preclude adding new spy ops in the future.

Right... but for the most part you still get hit with a nuke a day. This is probably a bit off topic since it's a relatively different suggestion but maybe you should only be able to fire a certain number of nukes a day... say 2 or 3 or maybe even 1. If all of them get blocked then you'll have to try again the next day. Logically speaking it makes sense, because right now, if your target doesn't have an SDI you're only allowed to fire one nuke per day.

I actually thought about suggesting it as a new weapon, the problem when you think about it though is that our nations don't literally have at max 20 nuclear weapons (25 with WRC) any more than they have a total population in the thousands. No, such numbers are game abstractions. One nuke therefore represents 1 unit of nuclear weapons power and it does X amount of damage depending upon tech level and other factors. It just made more sense to instead make it a wonder and give maintainers of nuke arsenals a break on the cost of maintaining nukes, along with a an improved chance of hitting a nation that has SDI.

Yes, the SDI really only helps the nation with the most attacking support. That is, the winning side of a curbstomp as they have a larger number of nuclear weapons as a group to hit a target with, whereas the nation on the end of a curbstomp only has 20 (or 25 with a HNMS) and will run out of nukes more quickly when fighting 3-6 nations with SDIs.

So, this spy op, while useful for a nation on the winning side of a curbstomp will give a glimmer of hope to a nation being stomped in that it can have an increased chance of their nuke strike being successful first time.

Not necessarily - if they use this option they have to burn their cash faster, which means they lose the ability to do damage earlier.

Strategically, if you're getting smacked down you should save some nukes for when you've been blasted into your enemy's lower ranks and then go to town on people who have less tech and wonders than you.

With warchests these days I doubt it would be much of an issue. If a couple of million for a spy op makes a huge difference then the issue is not the option to use such a spy operation but your lack of preparation.

If it's going to cut the effectiveness of the SDI in half, it should cost at least as much as the "Destroy Nuclear Weapons" operation, and shouldn't last beyond the next update or the next nuke launched against the nation hit with the op (whether that nuke gets through or not).

Yeah, thats what the proposal suggests.

While I disagree with the need for this spy op, I think this is the best method of implementation. It both simulates reality somewhat and isn't ridiculously destructive to the wonder people spent $75 million on; I don't think something costing less than $5 million should be able to undo the money spent on an SDI, and as long as this spy op only lasts one nuke launch or until update and only decreases the SDI's effectiveness then it fits that bill well enough.

Looks like this would be the first spy attack that specifically attacks a wonder or improvement. I'm kind'a 50/50 here.

Not a bad suggestion, as it can increase a bit the chances of an outnumbered nation to actually hit with its 1/2 nukes purchased per day.

My SDI also blocked only one nuke in its career, with 5 that went through, thus I have nothing to lose with this suggestion... Thumbs up for me!

The cost per op is (Max 1) = $500,000 + (15 x enemy nation strength) right?

Facing an enemy of 50k NS (so middle of the line but small for nuke war) that's 1.25M a pop, right?

Let's say facing only 3 opponents a round, trying to inflict max damage (instead of stringing out hits to nuke-lock your opponents which is mostly impossible in a beatdown)
that would be 1.25M * (3 opponents per day) * 6 days of nuke war. Using this op at every opportunity will cost 22.5M a round of war, assuming that you're always successful against your targets. And all this does is make the SDI slightly less effective, far from guarantee a hit on your 3 opponents. I'm not sure that's worth it, considering you're going to be blasted into your enemy's lower ranks, where extra cash will let you start fighting regularly instead of just turtling.

Why would any spy operation guarantee anything? The whole appeal of spy ops like this is the unpredictability and that fact that the wide range of spy options provides greatly flexibility in war.

I don't really see "it is too expensive" as a valid reason to not apply this change as the cost/gain question is something a nation will decide on when considering using this spy option much the same as any other spy option.

I hadn't seen anyone try at the success/failure results, so here's a go.

Disrupt SDI effectiveness:
1. Full success - Next nuke launch hits.
2. Success, discovered - Next nuke launch has 60% chance of hitting (SDI effectiveness reduced from 60% to 40%).
3. Failure, not discovered - Nothing.
4. Failure, discovered - Next nuke launch has 20% chance of hitting (SDI effectiveness increased from 60% to 80%).

Why would catching a spy that failed cause and SDI to become more effective? Because you know they tried so you're going to be extra vigilant? Wouldn't the fact that you're already at war make you extra vigilant?

Id go with this

1) full success - % reduction (numbers still under debate)
2) success, but caught - same % reduction, but they know who did it
3) Failure, not discovered - They know somebody tried, but don't know who
4) failure, discovered - They know YOU tried, and perhaps killed some of your spys.

You know, the way its already coded into the system.

That reasoning is why there are spy ops (and other gameplay elements) that no one uses in game, sitting there cluttering up the game. :shrug: But if mo' ops means mo' better, who I am to object...

Then suggest getting rid of the useless ops rather than block decent new ones.

Or making them useful.

I'm not a huge fan of the nukes system on it's own. Ground attacks you can defend against or at least gain something from them. Bombing campaigns you can defend against. Navies you can defend against. Spies you can defend against. CMs you can't defend against but do limited damage. Without the SDI nukes are a guranteed hit, turning the fight into a slugfest. No real strategy, just click. The SDI is the one thing that makes them interesting, because there is a chance that by the end of a war you're not eating one every day. Don't break the SDI

It depends on how many nations are attacking you as to your chances of avoiding being hit my a nuke. This wouldn't break the SDI as I have already said a few times.

1. Spy operations are not guaranteed to be successful. Most spy ops between nations large enough to stockpile nukes and own an SDI are 50/50 and you only have to defend against 2 attacks per day.

2. If the spy operation is successful then there is still a chance the resulting nuclear attack will be thwarted which will reset your SDI to the 60% success rate.

There is no guaranteed hit and a nation using this spy operation will risk losing the money spent on it just like with every other spy operation. The added risk is that the weakening of an opponent's SDI by a successful spy op is no guarantee that the nuclear attack that follows will succeed. This spy operation has a greater risk of failure than any other that I know of.

When you run a spy op to destroy a nuke or change DEFCON and are successful then the nuke is gone or the DEFCON is altered to your advantage. With this spy op the success of the op is only half the battle. Sure, the chances of a successful nuclear attack are good with a weakened SDI but it is no certainty.