Raise spy buying limit

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

What the hell do you expect, if you go off and drop nukes on people? 

 

If you nuked our guys, I would do the exact same thing to you.  Actions have consequences, and to try to change the game because you put yourself in a losing situation both blatantly apparent and pathetic.

[Vincent]

I dont think we need to raise the spy count per day. Instead certain modiification can be made on spies .

[Atzuya]

Even if you can recruit 10+ spies per day, it's not gonna stop a relentless string of spy ops by people who can recruit that much amount daily

 

But still, ingame politics aside, I still can't see the point behind raising the daily buy limit if the intention is to stop people from killing yours everyday. Maybe nerfing the rate of which spies are killed per spy op, but something like this would just make your enemy giggle softly in their lair.

[Dwynn]

I suppose I would be considered part of the "benefiting group" of the current system, but I would like to point out that spies don't win wars. [snip]

Just going to call BS on that right there. Spies can be the deciding factor in a war. Coordinated spying is devastating.

 

You can only be spied on 3 times per day. No necessarily by the same person

You can't be spied more than once by the same person in a day, because a person can only spy once a day. You can only receive 3 spy ops against your nation a day. So if you receive multiple spy ops, then it is most definitely from multiple people.

 

Back to the OP:

The limit that people keep forgetting about is that a large nation can spy someone half their size, inconsequentially. There's no spy range. How is that considered fair? I could literally stack up 10 spies, and pick on someone below me, every day, for the rest of my game. And there's NOTHING they can do about it. This is one of the biggest flaws currently with the spy system. So a nation like Phiney (#1 currently) who maintaining a large spy detail is a drop in the income, can literally wipe out someone like, well like me. I'm currently at 735'ish score. For a nation this size, keeping a large spy detail is a lot more costly than one Phiney's size.

 

Do I agree that "planning makes preparation"? Hell yeah I do. But do I also think there needs to be limits? Absolutely. You guys can't in one breath claim "THE WAR RANGE NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED" and think that having no spy limitations at all is balanced.

 

It's not. No matter how you sell it.

[Rozalia]

You can't be spied more than once by the same person in a day, because a person can only spy once a day. You can only receive 3 spy ops against your nation a day. So if you receive multiple spy ops, then it is most definitely from multiple people.

 

Back to the OP:

The limit that people keep forgetting about is that a large nation can spy someone half their size, inconsequentially. There's no spy range. How is that considered fair? I could literally stack up 10 spies, and pick on someone below me, every day, for the rest of my game. And there's NOTHING they can do about it. This is one of the biggest flaws currently with the spy system. So a nation like Phiney (#1 currently) who maintaining a large spy detail is a drop in the income, can literally wipe out someone like, well like me. I'm currently at 735'ish score. For a nation this size, keeping a large spy detail is a lot more costly than one Phiney's size.

 

Do I agree that "planning makes preparation"? Hell yeah I do. But do I also think there needs to be limits? Absolutely. You guys can't in one breath claim "THE WAR RANGE NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED" and think that having no spy limitations at all is balanced.

 

It's not. No matter how you sell it.

 

Just a quick correction. If they have the Central Intelligence Agency project than they can spy the same person twice. 

 

I agree a range should be implemented. I'd also say a reduction in the amount of spies killed should likely also be implemented. 

[Greatnate]

Just going to call BS on that right there. Spies can be the deciding factor in a war. Coordinated spying is devastating.

 

You can't be spied more than once by the same person in a day, because a person can only spy once a day. You can only receive 3 spy ops against your nation a day. So if you receive multiple spy ops, then it is most definitely from multiple people.

 

Back to the OP:

The limit that people keep forgetting about is that a large nation can spy someone half their size, inconsequentially. There's no spy range. How is that considered fair? I could literally stack up 10 spies, and pick on someone below me, every day, for the rest of my game. And there's NOTHING they can do about it. This is one of the biggest flaws currently with the spy system. So a nation like Phiney (#1 currently) who maintaining a large spy detail is a drop in the income, can literally wipe out someone like, well like me. I'm currently at 735'ish score. For a nation this size, keeping a large spy detail is a lot more costly than one Phiney's size.

 

Do I agree that "planning makes preparation"? Hell yeah I do. But do I also think there needs to be limits? Absolutely. You guys can't in one breath claim "THE WAR RANGE NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED" and think that having no spy limitations at all is balanced.

 

It's not. No matter how you sell it.

 

Spy range, It wouldn't help TMA/Mutant, but it would help  a lot of smaller people. Might be a thing we should do. I shouldn't be able to wreck noobs if I feel like it, just because I have a lot of spies. Not that I would be such a jerk.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

its a two way street, if the war declaration range isn't going to change, there is no reason for the spy range to change.

[Caecus]

Just going to call BS on that right there. Spies can be the deciding factor in a war. Coordinated spying is devastating.

 

What I mean by "spies don't win wars" is that in terms of traditional standard warfare where victory counts as 6 triumphant victories on the ground. When you consider how much a spy attack does on soldiers, tanks, and planes (to some degree, ships), it is overall negligible. 3000 soldiers max in a spy attack is nothing. In fact, it is significantly cheaper to just buy 3000 more soldiers than it is to purchase 10 spies (assuming the enemy has zero) and then proceeding to do the spy attack. Same could be said for tanks, though the margin of financial loss is lower. Spying airplanes is just sad and a waste of money. 

 

The only time where spies "win wars" is when you look at the alliance and multilateral level of warfare where missiles and nuclear weapons play a significant role in rolling an alliance's infra. That being said, nobody in their right minds would spend thousands if not millions to maintain a sizable spy force to just spy the living shit out of some soldiers in a lower tier nation. In fact, it is around 1200 times cheaper to just fund a lower tier nation to roll the guy. So, in recognition that higher level nations can maintain a large spy force to coordinate and squish other alliances and their missile programs, yeah, I agree, it can get ugly. But I disagree that spy operations are abusive to lower tier nations, because honestly, who is willing to spend 300k a day just to kill some soldiers in a nobody's nation? Perhaps the better question is, who actually did that and told themselves that it was a smart thing to do?

 

Also, spy assassination ops are very different from traditional battles. The aggressor in a ground battle has a slight advantage where they lose fewer soldiers, even if the attack is an "utter failure." If your spy op fails, you fail to assassinate any spies, and more likely than not, you will also lose a significant number of your own spy force. By the time anyone gets to around 100+ spies, the amount of spies you would need to execute a 99% chance success operation is over 180 spies. The maximum spies you can kill at any one given time is 25 spies, which is equivalent to 1.25 million dollars in military hardware. To just break even is 125 spies in the op (assuming "quick and dirty"). I don't think anyone has yet to send in 150+ spies against 150+ spies and found how much you could possibly lose, but I am guessing the limit is still capped at 25 spies. Point is, once you get beyond 100+ spies, it becomes extremely risky and expensive to spy your disgustingly well-defended ass. Higher tier nations are indeed at an advantage in that they have the funds and upkeep means to maintain a large spy force, but the fact is, if people want to spy you, it's expensive. The only time most people would use their spy force is preliminary offensive or defensive reasons, and their targets are your missiles and nukes (spies, but only to get them out of the way for the bigger fish). Spying missiles is only profitable when the enemy has less than 1 spy. Spying nuclear weapons is almost always profitable, with the enemy having less than 40 spies. 

 

What I think would be a cool but scary dystopian vision for Orbis is VE going on to maintain the largest spy force, and then spy the living shit out of anyone with more than 30 spies to maintain their spy dominance. Scary, and I think at that point, yeah, spies need to be fixed, but the sheer amount of money needed to build up, degrade and maintain their own supremacy would probably be more expensive than getting 10 of their members to go nuclear. Not to mention the amount of time needed, and the one thing I learned about Orbis is that nobody can keep a secret for their own life. 

[Dwynn]

its a two way street, if the war declaration range isn't going to change, there is no reason for the spy range to change.

 

Except Sheepy has already admitted that war range needs to be tweaked and it's in the pipe to fix. 

 

And you're absolutely right, if one part of the game is broke slightly, don't bother fixing another part of the game that is jarringly broken. [/sarcasm]