Saopha Calas Vaduum Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I just used 9 spies against the soldiers of a nation with one spy. The wiki said I could kill up to 3,000 soldiers. You successfully detonated an explosive in a barracks in Federation of the Americas. Your spies killed 441 soldiers. Your agents were able to operate undetected. The operation cost you $90,000.00 and 0 of your spies were captured and executed. Save this information somewhere safe; after you leave this page you will not be able to see this intelligence report again without executing another operation. Is this a possible bug? Because otherwise that "up to" needs to be revised as it is seriously misleading. I would have been happy killing 1500 or so, as it's within an order of magnitude, but damn that just felt like a massive waste of money. Quote - Saopha Legatus Calas Vaduum, Lord General Big Shots of Charming Friends We are the c h a̼̻Í̖͇ r m i̇͡ n g f r i e n d s and we are t͙̙̹͎̻͓͢͜͢Ìh̢̘͕̪̹͓̟͉̰̀̕Ì̯͎̫͈̬͓eÌ¡ÍžÌ™Ì¬Í‰Ì²ÌœÍ ÍÒ‰Í Ì¥Ì–Ì®Ì Í‡Í”Ì™Í“c̀͜͢ÍÌ•ÌŸÍ–Ì³Ì r̲͚͖̩͜͞͞uÌ¡Í Í€Ì›Ì•Ì£Ì²Ì³Ì–ÌÍÌžÌ ÌªÍ™ÍÌ¤Ì e̢̡̜̗̬̩Ì͇̟͉̱̜l̛͟Í͎͔̲̫͇̜̙͚eÍÍ̟̱̕Ì͎͎̖̗͚͚̦̼sÍœÍ̵̡͕̙̬̹͈̺̯̣̱̱̗̩̼͟Ì̯̺͈tÍ€Í ÍžÍžÌ̜̫̩̟̙͔ ̡̛҉̙̘̼͚̙̀͟ÍÍ͓̱̲͓̻̗oÍ̸Í̸͔̤̼̩̳͎͔͈͢f̶̴̢̬̺͔̮̱̫͓̘͟ ̢͉̞̪̦̣̼͓͞Í̫̻̹͖͉̮͇͙ͅf͘̕ÍÍ¢Í͕̻̱Ì̞̫͖̹̫͔̳oÍ̴̘̣̟̪̞̱͙̣͜ÌÌžÌ̥̘͕ÌeÍ̢̯̪̙̪͜͜͞s̸͟Í͙̲̣̜̲̞̜͇̲̤̮̗͔͇͈̺̯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oskar Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Was it "Quick and Dirty" or was it higher? Because Quick and Dirty might make sense depending on the amount of soldiers he had. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 that's the upper limit, while how many soldiers you kill is directly related to how many spies you sent. That 9 is barely enough to reach the 3000 limit :s 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 The amount of spies to reach the full limit hasn't been really calculated. By my estimations, the number for destroying the full amount of tanks (250) was around 55-60 spies, assuming the enemy has zero. I'm sure there are others who have more direct combat experience, if anyone else would like to weigh in. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 50 is a good number to send. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saopha Calas Vaduum Posted June 16, 2015 Author Share Posted June 16, 2015 Then perhaps the wiki should be more clear. We don't need a direct formula, but "up to" is very ambiguous language to use. Quote - Saopha Legatus Calas Vaduum, Lord General Big Shots of Charming Friends We are the c h a̼̻Í̖͇ r m i̇͡ n g f r i e n d s and we are t͙̙̹͎̻͓͢͜͢Ìh̢̘͕̪̹͓̟͉̰̀̕Ì̯͎̫͈̬͓eÌ¡ÍžÌ™Ì¬Í‰Ì²ÌœÍ ÍÒ‰Í Ì¥Ì–Ì®Ì Í‡Í”Ì™Í“c̀͜͢ÍÌ•ÌŸÍ–Ì³Ì r̲͚͖̩͜͞͞uÌ¡Í Í€Ì›Ì•Ì£Ì²Ì³Ì–ÌÍÌžÌ ÌªÍ™ÍÌ¤Ì e̢̡̜̗̬̩Ì͇̟͉̱̜l̛͟Í͎͔̲̫͇̜̙͚eÍÍ̟̱̕Ì͎͎̖̗͚͚̦̼sÍœÍ̵̡͕̙̬̹͈̺̯̣̱̱̗̩̼͟Ì̯̺͈tÍ€Í ÍžÍžÌ̜̫̩̟̙͔ ̡̛҉̙̘̼͚̙̀͟ÍÍ͓̱̲͓̻̗oÍ̸Í̸͔̤̼̩̳͎͔͈͢f̶̴̢̬̺͔̮̱̫͓̘͟ ̢͉̞̪̦̣̼͓͞Í̫̻̹͖͉̮͇͙ͅf͘̕ÍÍ¢Í͕̻̱Ì̞̫͖̹̫͔̳oÍ̴̘̣̟̪̞̱͙̣͜ÌÌžÌ̥̘͕ÌeÍ̢̯̪̙̪͜͜͞s̸͟Í͙̲̣̜̲̞̜͇̲̤̮̗͔͇͈̺̯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Admittedly, there isn't a very good spy guide out there for the public. I think I wrote one briefly, but it was specific to my alliance. Perhaps a very generous individual would like to contribute to a guide for spies. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Baldarius Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 I sent a spy operation once, did it cautionary, and my spies ended up killing about 50 people XD Quote THE NEW PRUSSIAN EMPIRE! Kaiser Nikolai Baldarius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted June 17, 2015 Administrators Share Posted June 17, 2015 Then perhaps the wiki should be more clear. We don't need a direct formula, but "up to" is very ambiguous language to use. "up to" implies a maximum cap of 3,000, which is exactly how it works. It doesn't say "you will, definitely" kill 3,000 soldiers. It says you can kill up to that many. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saopha Calas Vaduum Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 It's just that "up to" is a vague term. It implies it will be somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000. Perhaps if it said something like, each spy will kill between 35-50 soldiers, with a maximum cap of 3,000. Or even simpler, "A spy mission sabotaging soldiers is capped at 3,000, depending on the quantity of spies." As it stands, the wiki offers no suggestion that the quantity of spies actually matters regarding the effect of the mission, only the success of it. You might think it's intuitive, but espionage missions aren't (at least in real life) numbers games the way tanks and soldiers are. It is completely reasonable that one spy could poison the food supply of an entire detachment of soldiers, killing or at least rendering ineffective several hundred or maybe even a thousand soldiers. I'm only speaking for myself but I didn't realise it was just a straight numbers game. Quote - Saopha Legatus Calas Vaduum, Lord General Big Shots of Charming Friends We are the c h a̼̻Í̖͇ r m i̇͡ n g f r i e n d s and we are t͙̙̹͎̻͓͢͜͢Ìh̢̘͕̪̹͓̟͉̰̀̕Ì̯͎̫͈̬͓eÌ¡ÍžÌ™Ì¬Í‰Ì²ÌœÍ ÍÒ‰Í Ì¥Ì–Ì®Ì Í‡Í”Ì™Í“c̀͜͢ÍÌ•ÌŸÍ–Ì³Ì r̲͚͖̩͜͞͞uÌ¡Í Í€Ì›Ì•Ì£Ì²Ì³Ì–ÌÍÌžÌ ÌªÍ™ÍÌ¤Ì e̢̡̜̗̬̩Ì͇̟͉̱̜l̛͟Í͎͔̲̫͇̜̙͚eÍÍ̟̱̕Ì͎͎̖̗͚͚̦̼sÍœÍ̵̡͕̙̬̹͈̺̯̣̱̱̗̩̼͟Ì̯̺͈tÍ€Í ÍžÍžÌ̜̫̩̟̙͔ ̡̛҉̙̘̼͚̙̀͟ÍÍ͓̱̲͓̻̗oÍ̸Í̸͔̤̼̩̳͎͔͈͢f̶̴̢̬̺͔̮̱̫͓̘͟ ̢͉̞̪̦̣̼͓͞Í̫̻̹͖͉̮͇͙ͅf͘̕ÍÍ¢Í͕̻̱Ì̞̫͖̹̫͔̳oÍ̴̘̣̟̪̞̱͙̣͜ÌÌžÌ̥̘͕ÌeÍ̢̯̪̙̪͜͜͞s̸͟Í͙̲̣̜̲̞̜͇̲̤̮̗͔͇͈̺̯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It's just that "up to" is a vague term. It implies it will be somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000. Perhaps if it said something like, each spy will kill between 35-50 soldiers, with a maximum cap of 3,000. Or even simpler, "A spy mission sabotaging soldiers is capped at 3,000, depending on the quantity of spies." As it stands, the wiki offers no suggestion that the quantity of spies actually matters regarding the effect of the mission, only the success of it. You might think it's intuitive, but espionage missions aren't (at least in real life) numbers games the way tanks and soldiers are. It is completely reasonable that one spy could poison the food supply of an entire detachment of soldiers, killing or at least rendering ineffective several hundred or maybe even a thousand soldiers. I'm only speaking for myself but I didn't realise it was just a straight numbers game. Well, if we are going to talk realistically here, if soldiers start dropping like flies due to poison in the food, soldiers would probably stop eating the food. Plus, the flavor text says bomb detonation in soldier barracks. You are entirely right though. Killing 3000 soldiers with spies costs around 5-600k, which is around 300 times more expensive than just recruiting soldiers and go for a ground attack. Likewise, that number is the same (roughly) for tanks and aircraft. That being said, there cost-efficiency ratio to killing conventional military can range from 40 to 3000 times less effective than a conventional military battle. The only spy missions that actually net a battle efficiency are ships (if the enemy has less than ~5 spies), missiles (if the enemy has less than ~5 spies), spies (but practically if you have enough spies for 99% Q&D), and nuclear weapons (if the enemy has less than ~40 spies). Spying tanks is roughly 40 times less efficient, but depending on market prices, it can fluctuate back down to around 5-6 times. Nobody in their right minds would use spies for anything other than ships, missiles, nuclear weapons and other spies. Spies, generally speaking, are an expensive force that, when utilized right, can save you millions in the long run. The number of spies necessary to destroy a nuclear weapon when an enemy has less than 5 spies is roughly 95. Rounding that up, the costs for destroying a nuclear weapon is $1m, while the costs for building the nuclear weapon is ~$6-7m, depending on market prices. That is a cost efficiency ratio of roughly 6 times. That is entirely excluding the possible damages taken from eating that nuke (which, JHH can vouch for, is well over $10m). My recommendation to you is start using spies against enemies with missiles, or (god help you) enemies with nukes. Using spies at a tier below 400NS is more or less pointless, though it can help in breaking blockades should that ever happen. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saopha Calas Vaduum Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 I've been using them against ships, and they've been very effective as I do not have a navy yet, but I was in the situation where an alliance mate was at war with another nation in beige, and required assistance in any way possible. Quote - Saopha Legatus Calas Vaduum, Lord General Big Shots of Charming Friends We are the c h a̼̻Í̖͇ r m i̇͡ n g f r i e n d s and we are t͙̙̹͎̻͓͢͜͢Ìh̢̘͕̪̹͓̟͉̰̀̕Ì̯͎̫͈̬͓eÌ¡ÍžÌ™Ì¬Í‰Ì²ÌœÍ ÍÒ‰Í Ì¥Ì–Ì®Ì Í‡Í”Ì™Í“c̀͜͢ÍÌ•ÌŸÍ–Ì³Ì r̲͚͖̩͜͞͞uÌ¡Í Í€Ì›Ì•Ì£Ì²Ì³Ì–ÌÍÌžÌ ÌªÍ™ÍÌ¤Ì e̢̡̜̗̬̩Ì͇̟͉̱̜l̛͟Í͎͔̲̫͇̜̙͚eÍÍ̟̱̕Ì͎͎̖̗͚͚̦̼sÍœÍ̵̡͕̙̬̹͈̺̯̣̱̱̗̩̼͟Ì̯̺͈tÍ€Í ÍžÍžÌ̜̫̩̟̙͔ ̡̛҉̙̘̼͚̙̀͟ÍÍ͓̱̲͓̻̗oÍ̸Í̸͔̤̼̩̳͎͔͈͢f̶̴̢̬̺͔̮̱̫͓̘͟ ̢͉̞̪̦̣̼͓͞Í̫̻̹͖͉̮͇͙ͅf͘̕ÍÍ¢Í͕̻̱Ì̞̫͖̹̫͔̳oÍ̴̘̣̟̪̞̱͙̣͜ÌÌžÌ̥̘͕ÌeÍ̢̯̪̙̪͜͜͞s̸͟Í͙̲̣̜̲̞̜͇̲̤̮̗͔͇͈̺̯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well, there are times where you can't help the cost-efficiency, if it means helping your ally, that's understandable. Hell, the reason why I know these numbers is because I did the exact same thing. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Ta-da. I changed it. Yippee, I should get an award. Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.