Spy Discussion: Why The System is Good

[Caecus]

Spies. They are the edge of the knife that often fight wars before front line troops even see the enemy. There are many instances in history where spies and special forces have determined the survival of entire nations and empires. 

 

There has been a lot of talk about how spies are an unfair aspect of the game. The biggest concern is that someone with more spies can kill several days worth of spies in a single attack. This is a discussion whether this is a legitimate problem, and solutions to that problem without making spies useless. I admittedly sit in the top 10 page for spies, but hear me out and why the system before the war formula overhaul update should be maintained. 

 

 

My first point: Spies are expensive. $50,000 per spy, with an upkeep of $2,400 per day. I broke 100 spies around 1 and a half months ago. The upkeep at 100 spies per day is alone $240,000. Multiplied over the month and a half I've had that many spies (45+ days), I have spent at least $10m in upkeep. That is excluding the costs of purchasing more spies and those added upkeeps. If I did not have this many spies, I could have easily purchased the Missile Launch Pad and built enough missiles to lob at everyone the BoC was at war with during the Great VE War. Twice. 100 spies is at least $1m in operation costs at only Quick and Dirty (Q&D). My current upkeep for my spies borders $400k per day. My point is, if Jon (currently ranked 1st in spy count) decides one day to kill my spies, he will have spent at least $2.5m in operational costs (for a very crappy percentage success rate at Q&D), or around $6m for a more reasonable success rate. This is entirely excluding the upkeeps he has been paying over the past couple of months. If you calculate it out, it turns out that for the past several months, he's paid at least $40m in upkeep and purchasing of spies. If he is willing to break the bank to kill my spies, he more than well DESERVES killing every one of my 100 spies that I would have lost in the old system. 

 

My second point: the point everyone is making about spies is a double standard. When someone doesn't build an airforce, and then gets rolled by someone who does, we don't think that the game is unfair. We think that the nation was just plain incompetent. But, flip it around, and when someone with more spies attacks, people think the game is unfair. If you think about it, it really isn't any different from a guy who lost all of his aircraft, and is limited to building just 1/6th each day only to get squished by the guy who actually bothered to build an airforce. It's only because it takes forever for people to get back their spy counts. I think it's fair to apply this standard: If one nation had more foresight than another to recruit spies, pay for them and their upkeep, and had siphoned the resources to squish the unprepared nation, the unprepared and ill of foresight should pay the penalty. 

 

My third point: 100>50. That is a mathematically true statement. What it means in PnW is that 100k soldiers will beat 50k soldiers. 100k soldiers will eventually beat 50k soldiers, no matter how many battles happen. Everyone should agree with this statement. Likewise, by that logic, 100 spies > 50 spies. Which means, at the end of the day, 100 spies should eventually beat 50 spies, no matter how long it takes. Everyone should also agree with that statement. In any way altering this fact makes war pointless. If somehow 50k soldiers on the defensive manages to beat off 100k soldiers in this game, war would be a dead aspect of this game. Likewise, if 100 spies could not kill 50 spies, spying would be a dead aspect of this game. So, the only problem people should have is not the fact that 50 spies can't beat 100 spies, but rather, people are losing those spies too fast. 

 

 

Plus, a nation can only take 3 spy attacks to them each day (which includes gathering intelligence). Each person is limited to only one of those attacks (2, if you have CIA, but only like 4 people have it). If a single attack destroyed half of your spies, you have to remember that the guy who did that was either very lucky (and got it on like a 50% chance) or spent the time and money to beat you in a game of resource and strategy. If you are afraid that you are losing spies over three separate attacks, it means that someone is obviously coordinating against you, WHICH IS PART OF THE GAME STRATEGY. If three separate people declare war on you and you get rolled, nobody is surprised by any means. 

 

 

The biggest problem people have seems to be that they lose spies too fast.

 

One fix proposed right now is to decrease the amount of spies lost when someone attacks you. This alone is a terrible fix, because it means that people who have spent millions and had the foresight and strategy to think ahead are now left with an extremely expensive way to flick a stone at someone. The only way this fix works is if the upkeep of spies, as well as individual spy and operational costs, were collectively reduced to reflect the amount of spies killed. 

 

Another fix that was proposed is raise the amount of spies a nation can purchase. This alone, also, is a terrible fix. The entire point of using spies offensively is to get at someone's missiles or nuclear weapons. When someone, within two or three days, can purchase enough spies to make it unprofitable to sabotage, the offensive use of spies becomes pointless. An additional fix can be added, which also includes reducing upkeep of spies, and individual spies and operational costs (the later being the most important). 

 

Edit: Imo, don't change the system. Nerfing anything right now would risk the entire spy system. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Caecus

[Moreau]

Yh

[Goomy]

totally agree.

[Caecus]

Does anyone have a good rational reason why the old system was bad? 

[vonnorman]

I nerfed my own spy count (dont ask ) and had all my missiles spied away. Still eventually built an airforce to win my wars but it was completely fair. Either build spies to protect yourself or deal with being spied. I vote un nerf the spies and keep the limitations of how high or low you can spy

[Bilal the Great]

Does anyone have a good rational reason why the old system was bad? 

Took to long to build up spy. 2 spy per day means for example that it took 5 days to reach 10 spies. Meanwhile you can lose those spies in an instant by a single spy attack. Because you can only build 2 of them everyday, that means you can't rebuild your spy power fast enough during conflicts. Thus leaving your nation open for spy attacks for a long time.

[Caecus]

Took to long to build up spy. 2 spy per day means for example that it took 5 days to reach 10 spies. Meanwhile you can lose those spies in an instant by a single spy attack. Because you can only build 2 of them everyday, that means you can't rebuild your spy power fast enough during conflicts. Thus leaving your nation open for spy attacks for a long time.

 

But the guy who killed your spies spent a $%&@ load of money to kill them. The upkeep, the operational cost. Depending on how many spies that person has, they probably spent more money than some of your cities to maintain and use that spy force. Also, under the old system, it's 50% of your spies max kill, so even if you had 10 spies against 100, they can only kill 5 in one operation, and 2 in the next. 

 

And let's be honest here, nobody spy attacks you unless you have ships, missiles or nukes. Even if you have ships, most people wouldn't consider it profitable to hit them during peace. The fact is, spies do not win wars. Sure, spies help significantly and reduce the casualties suffered, but at the end of the day a war is won (by the standards of the game) by 6 ground battles or (by the standards of everyone who plays the game) how much infra damage you do. Spies, in no way, directly contribute to these methods of victory. 

 

That being said, let's picture a scenario where you have 100 spies, and an enemy has 224 spies under the old system. 224 spies cost $537,600 per day in upkeep, multiplied over the 5 day period a war happens, that is $2,688,000. That is roughly ~$3m that your enemy will not have in the remainder of the war. To attack your 100 spies, the Q&D cost is $2,240,000. The maximum amount of spies your enemy can kill is 50, meaning you have 50 left over. To spy a missile away at 50 spies for Q&D is roughly ~170 spies, or around $1.6-1.9m. The costs of building a missile during wartime prices is roughly ~$1.3m (Don't quote me on that). And most people build missiles with peacetime supplies. Counting up the score, this person has spent around ~$6m over the entire course of the war so far. Your losses of 50 spies and 1 missile equates to around ~$4m (wartime prices). And by spending that ~$6m, they have done absolutely nothing to win. 

 

My point is, building spies is a give and take scenario. While they are overall useful, they don't help you on the ground battle a single bit. Also being limited to just one spy operation per day, some might even say that spies are useless. By the time the guy with 224 spies gets to start spying on your missiles profitably, you likely already made him eat it. 

[Callum]

Cost aside, do you have anything else to add?

[Clarke]

The spy system changed?

[naTia]

The spy system changed?

Yeah. The one I noticed especially was how hard it was to kill spies now.

[LordRahl2]

Cost aside, do you have anything else to add?

Why should there be anything else to add? He is correct.

[Caecus]

Cost aside, do you have anything else to add?

 

Cost is the biggest issue. Spies are practically the only way to strategically destroy missiles and (god help you) nuclear weapons without either eating it or praying your ID blocks it like a boss. Right now, the system has been nerfed: it used to be 224 spies could attack 100 spies for 99% success at Q&D and be able to kill up to half. Now, 224 spies against 100 is 66% probability success at Q&D, and you can only kill up to 29 spies. 

 

Yeah. The one I noticed especially was how hard it was to kill spies now.

 

 

In ground battles, you will suffer casualties, but you will undoubtedly kill enemies. Spy attacks are very different from ground battles. 66% success means that there is a 33% chance of failure: a 1 in 3 chance that you will kill absolutely no spies. Moreover, that chance completely excludes the fact that you could lose spies in the process. 33% chance of failure on a ~$2.3m operation IS RIDICULOUS. If you increase the chances to "Normal Precautions," you will find that your success percentage is now 82% instead, but the operational cost just skyrocketed to ~$6m. 82% success still means you have a 12% chance of failure. And all of that money just to kill 29 enemy spies. 

 

Right now, the spy system favors the defender so much, people could potentially just sit on 50 spies. Even if their enemies managed to get 200+ spies for the 99% success rate at Q&D, the amount of money they spent trying to kill 14 of your 50 spies (the 29% limit) would be hilariously stupid. By the time you can start killing missiles for a decent success rate, you would have already spent over ~$6m, when you clearly have a significantly larger spy force. The system makes everyone with more than 100 spies look stupid, because we are wasting a lot of money on trying to make a universally defensive unit in nature to be offensive. 

 

Again, I suggested a proposed fix to this earlier: If we are going to keep this system, we should also significantly reduce the upkeep cost, purchasing cost, and operational costs of spies to reflect how many spies killed. But the only difference between this fix and the old system is that people will now be able to amass larger spy armies than before. It would increase the amount of time that your spies would drop by a significant factor, and this I worry would also undermine the effectiveness of using spies offensively. 

Edited June 28, 2015 by Caecus

[LordRahl2]

All the changes favor defense over offense. Defense was already strong. I would roll back all the changes as the game was generally O.K. before the unnecessary need.

[naTia]

I also agree and truly believe the way spies were was a very good balance. Spies currently mean nothing. I have to pay 4 mil to kill 12 spies with 99% (my max efficiency possible) with 78 vs. around 40.

[Caecus]

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:09] <Ashland> If someone spied me before they'd get like 60-70 kills.

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:09] <Ashland> Now they'll get like 35.

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:09] <Sheepy> And you don't think that's right?

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:10] <Sheepy> 60-70 kills is a month's worth of spy building

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:10] <Ashland> I don't. I think that if you have a ton of spies you SHOULD lose more.

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:10] <Ashland> And if you have not a ton of spies you SHOULD lose less.

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:10] <Ashland> Which is why it makes sense for someone with 5 spies to lose only like 2 or 3.

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:10] <Sheepy> It's currently capped at 25% + 4 spies per op (25% of defending spies)

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:11] <Sheepy> What would you like to see it at?

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:11] <Ashland> 35% or so would be reasonable with the costs decreased just a tad.

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:11] <Ashland> I think.

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:11] <Sheepy> Alright

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:11] <Sheepy> Why don't you make a closed dev post about increasing it to 35% and a lowered cost proposal

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:11] <Sheepy> So I can see what everyone else thinks

6:12 PM <•Ashland> [20:11] <Ashland> Sure.

 

Ashland will be fronting the proposal later, coming up with some reasonable numbers and such. I would also like to see the success chances returned to the old system as well.

 

So, according to this system: if you have 100 spies that are being attempted assassination, you are left with 65 after the first operation. Second op leaves you with 42. Third op leaves you with 27. Fourth leaves you with 18. Fifth leaves you with 12. Sixth leaves you with 8. Seventh leaves you with 5. Eighth leaves you with 3. Ninth leaves you with 2. Tenth leaves you with 1. Eleventh zeros you.

 

According to the old system: 100 -> 50 -> 25 -> 13 -> 6 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0, meaning it takes nine operations to zero you.

[Caecus]

Also, to put it in perspective, let's take a look at how many spies it takes to spy missiles away. 

 

If the enemy has 0 spies, it takes 4 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 1 spies, it takes 15 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 2 spies, it takes 26 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 3 spies, it takes 38 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 4 spies, it takes 49 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 5 spies, it takes 60 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 6 spies, it takes 71 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 7 spies, it takes 82 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 8 spies, it takes 93 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 9 spies, it takes 104 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

If the enemy has 10 spies, it takes 116 spies to sabotage a missile for Q&D at 99% success. 

 

Using current market prices (Al - 1700 ppu, G - 2000 ppu, M - 800 ppu), a cost of a missile is $530,000. If the enemy has more than 4 spies, sabotaging a missile no longer becomes profitable (assuming operational costs are the same). 

[Caecus]

Before War Formula Overhaul: $2,400 per day per agent, $200/turn upkeep. Each operation costs $10,000 per agent (at Q&D). Maximum kill count is 50% of the enemy force. 224 spies assassinate 100 spies at 99% success rate (Q&D). Each spy costs $50,000

 

 

Current: $2,400 per day per agent, $200/turn upkeep. Each operation costs $10,000 per agent (at Q&D). Maximum kill count is 29% of enemy force. 224 spies assassinate 100 spies at 66% success rate (at Q&D). Each spy costs $50,000

 

 

Proposed: $2,400 per day per agent, $200/turn upkeep. Each operation costs $7000 per agent (at Q&D). Maximum kill count is 35% of enemy force. 224 spies assassinate 100 spies at 99% success rate (at Q&D). Each spy costs $50,000

Edited June 29, 2015 by Caecus

[Clarke]

All the changes favor defense over offense. Defense was already strong. I would roll back all the changes as the game was generally O.K. before the unnecessary need.

Defense was actually rather weak, so much so that someone with a lot less spies could decimate a nation with more spies.

Stronger defenses can only be good. 

[LordRahl2]

Defense was actually rather weak, so much so that someone with a lot less spies could decimate a nation with more spies.

Stronger defenses can only be good. 

 

Ummmm, people could not...

Stronger defenses can only be bad.

[Caecus]

Defense was actually rather weak, so much so that someone with a lot less spies could decimate a nation with more spies.

Stronger defenses can only be good. 

 

I have no idea what kind of numbers you are using, but I would entirely disagree. What you are talking about is what is more commonly known to me as upward assassination. Upward assassination is when you have less amount of spies than your opponent, and you try to kill them. Upward assassination, depending on the disparity between you and your enemy in spy counts, is extremely expensive. To simulate, let's take a look at a scenario with 100 spies against 150. Under the old system, your chances of a successful operation is around 47% for Q&D. Upping those chances to Normal Precautions got you 72%. Only by conducting an extremely covert operation could you get a 99% success rate. The cost is ~$5m for extremely covert, or ~$3m for normal precautions. Again, 72% success means you have a 28% chance of completely wasting ~$3m. 

 

At the time, we didn't have the simulations, so we ended up conducting experiments. The game mechanic specifies "Up to 50%" killed. In almost all operations where you have more spies than your enemy, you will kill up to 50%. So, what they mean by "Up to 50% killed" is likely from upward assassination. This was done as a small scale test, when an individual with 1 spy conducted an assassination operation that was successful against someone with 20 spies, but only killed one spy. Likewise, we have also conducted a test with 40 spies against 40, in which the mission ended as a partial success: 17 enemies were killed, 7 spies lost. 

 

Most curiously, we have yet to conduct a large scale upward assassination operation. In the case of 100 spies against 150 (assuming you use extremely covert and bust out the ~$5m for the op), we estimate that the number killed is roughly 50-55 enemy spies, compared to the full 75, but this is just a guess. I seriously wouldn't call it "decimation" (though, taking the literal definition of what decimation was, sure). 

 

 

Most experienced people do upward assassination ops over update, in order to raking in two attacks. I think that upward assassination is very difficult enough, and if someone is willing to throw ~$10m just to get even with you, I think it is a fair system. 

 

 

This update doesn't nerf upward assassinations, it makes upward assassinations statistically impossible. Upward assassinations over updates used to be a tactic used to try and even the playing field against someone who has a little more spy power than you. Now, it is a strategic nightmare. Looking on the bright side though, because of the update, that guy isn't going to threaten you with spies anymore without breaking his bank. 

[Clarke]

Caecus I wasn't actually talking about what your suggesting, I thought the defenses were boosted in the last update so I'm commenting on that hence my use of the past tense, I think the guy I was replying to was talking about the same thing as well. 

At least I thought it was updated, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere. 

 

And I thought you wanted the current system to be maintained? You want to weaken defenses?

 

 

Most experienced people do upward assassination ops over update, in order to raking in two attacks. I think that upward assassination is very difficult enough, and if someone is willing to throw ~$10m just to get even with you, I think it is a fair system. 

That $10 million is the first step in a series of much cheaper spy attacks that lead to downfall of nukes and missiles which could prevent up anywhere between ~10 million to 100 million depending on how well equipped the opponent is in terms of missiles and nukes and how much cost damage they could inflict.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Clarke

[Caecus]

Caecus I wasn't actually talking about what your suggesting, I thought the defenses were boosted in the last update so I'm commenting on that hence my use of the past tense, I think the guy I was replying to was talking about the same thing as well. 

At least I thought it was updated, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere. 

 

My interpretation of what LordRahl2 said was that the system after the war formula overhaul favors the defensive too much, which I agree with. What I interpreted as what you said was before the update, it was easy to use a smaller amount of spies to kill someone with more spies. 

 

 

And I thought you wanted the current system to be maintained? You want to weaken defenses?

 

My topic name is a bit ambiguous, and I apologize for that. What I am in favor of is the system BEFORE the war formula overhaul update, but now I am willing to compromise at the new proposed system, which I think does address the problem of losing spies too fast. 

 

 

That $10 million is the first step in a series of much cheaper spy attacks that lead to downfall of nukes and missiles which could prevent up anywhere between ~10 million to 100 million depending on how well equipped the opponent is in terms of missiles and nukes and how much cost damage they could inflict.

 

That is a true statement. After your initial investment, the spy attacks do become cheaper depending on how many spies you manage to kill in the first attempt. But that is entirely under the assumption that $10m+ is something people throw around like chump change. This is also excluding the fact that the other person can retaliate, given that the person was willing to spend that money. 

 

 

All in all, defending the old system was more of a secondary objective to my main goal, which is to change the war formula overhaul system. Under the new proposed system (35% kills), upward assassinations are now nerfed so that instead of killing around 60-70 spies over an update attack (out of the original 150 I was discussing), upward assassinations now only kill around 50. Which I think is a reasonable amount, but not so over powered to the point where if you were losing a spy arms race, you would never be able to change that. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

 

According to the old system: 100 -> 50 -> 25 -> 13 -> 6 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0, meaning it takes nine operations to zero you.

 

So in the old system it takes 3 days to destroy 50 days of work, and that is ok with you?

[Caecus]

So in the old system it takes 3 days to destroy 50 days of work, and that is ok with you?

 

 

Yes, for the 1500 word reason that I posted about. I'm going to try and shorten that into something that I can fit here:

 

1. Cost - The number of spies killed must reflect how much money you put into it. When a guy kills your spies, he spent a lot of money doing it. Decreasing the number makes going on the offensive inefficient and pointless. Having the defender be op is not an option, because that would defeat the entire purpose of spies.

 

2. Basic Math- Regardless to say, 100 spies will beat 50 spies. Losing slower or faster solely depends on the overall objective of what spies are used for, which is to (primarily) attack missiles/nukes and (secondarily) ships. Increasing the cost and time too much to get to those objectives also defeats the purpose of spies. 

 

3. Strategic initiative- The game should reward those who thought ahead and recruited spies, not penalize them. Those who recruited spies and spent that time and money should be dominating those who didn't, not barely making by as it is. Spies are expensive, and thus the system is a give and take. Build too many spies, and you will have less income for your other military. Recruit too few, and you risk having heavier weapons being destroyed. Overall, it should be noted that spies do not contribute to victory, which (in terms of the game) is 6 successful consecutive ground battles or (by the standards of everyone playing PnW) how much infra damage you do.

 

 

The proportion between spy kills and operational costs in the old system was perfect. The attacker made a small profit killing spies (as he should, since he had spent more money to build a larger military). Severely decreasing the amount of spies you can kill in one operation without decreasing the operational costs favors the defender too much for spies to be an actual strategic part of the game. MY PERSONAL OPINION is that the 50% system worked, and was fine. Obviously that isn't the general consensus, which Sheepy hears and agrees with. So, my compromise is to max spy kills at 35%, but reduce operational costs of spies to $7,000 per spy at Q&D. The overall effect is to increase the amount of time it takes to kill an enemy's spies.

 

I distinctly decided to keep the upkeep the same, for the reason that the upkeep is a limiting factor as to how many spies someone can have, and will serve to limit massive spy armies. Likewise, keeping the initial costs of spies also serves to that effect.  

 

 

Edit: Also, 9 operations to kill 100 spies is 9 days of spying from one person. What you are assuming is that there are at least 3 people out there who have more spies than you and are all simultaneously attacking you. That's just part of the game strategy. If you managed to piss off three very powerful people, you better find some allies. That's where the "Politics" side of the "Politics and War" comes in. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Caecus

[Clarke]

That is a true statement. After your initial investment, the spy attacks do become cheaper depending on how many spies you manage to kill in the first attempt. But that is entirely under the assumption that $10m+ is something people throw around like chump change. This is also excluding the fact that the other person can retaliate, given that the person was willing to spend that money. 

 

 

All in all, defending the old system was more of a secondary objective to my main goal, which is to change the war formula overhaul system. Under the new proposed system (35% kills), upward assassinations are now nerfed so that instead of killing around 60-70 spies over an update attack (out of the original 150 I was discussing), upward assassinations now only kill around 50. Which I think is a reasonable amount, but not so over powered to the point where if you were losing a spy arms race, you would never be able to change that. 

 

Well it's usually the start of a global war that the spy attacks occur so $10 million+ is chump change compared to the damage it will prevent from being inflicted.

You can bet your ass alliances will easily spent 100 million or more quite easily on spy attacks if they have to because the advantage is quite significant. 

First strike spy attacks win, counter strikes don't exist for spy attacks.