What are some good average spals regardless of strat acres etc..

If netting: 0

Because 0 to 100 is the same as zero vs ppl built for war. It might mean a couple fails to have say 39. Not worth it.

I would say I max out at 5 for techers, 1-2 for anything with land.

2-300 for war countries.
1k+ for crappy restarts

What’s the difference between 5 and 0?

Me forgetting that I have ICs

:)

The only difference is that the offender loses some spies when he fails that 35th spy op.

Yeah. I usually like to go around 4-5 when netting because that's usually high enough that if someone does decide to destroy me I eventually hit drs after like 35 that i dont hit on 0 spal. My FFOs i keep around 200 indies so if i get around 200k acres im generally lower around 2-4 SPAL.

Stocks war i like around 250-2000 depending on strat.

Early war like 80-100

So no real definitive answer besides alot or damn near none at all

yeah the ideal amount of SDI tech for netting is always 0 tech points, the ideal troops are usually 0, the ideal tanks usually 0, the ideal turrets are always 0 and the ideal number of spies is always 0. That goes for alliance. I would say tanks and troops are supposed to be 0 as well but every so often they are actually better to grab with than jets due to market prices.

The cost of getting a decent turret and tank defence might be 100m ending NW but the cost of a top player getting a decent SPAL (read a SPAL that would matter in war and in stopping tech stealers and suiciders) we are talking 1000m+ ending NW cost. No one has ever gotten 300m NW while being adequatly defended to spies. Is it a natural law that it has to be that way? Why isn't it a sliding scale of sorts? Not just netting or warring. In Utopia for instance war is essential for netting, so they have solved this discrepancy in another way.

You still hit DR even if you have 0 spies so that doesn't give you a reason to have 4 spal vs 0 spal.

Spies should be very highly powered. In real life, a spy can be worth a Division, and sometimes a whole army. In this game, a spy in the enemy's war room can win the war. It means extra time to wall if you know you get warning during the countdown. Ask TSO on Team.

Sun Tzu said: Chapter XIII · Intelligence and Espionage

敌间之来间我者，因而利之，导而舍之，故反间可得而用也；
It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you. Give them instructions and care for them. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used.

故明君賢將，所以動而勝人，成功出于眾者，先知也。
Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge.

故三军之事，莫亲于间，赏莫厚于间，事莫密于间，
Of all those in the army close to the commander none is more intimate than the secret agent; of all rewards none more liberal than those given to secret agents; of all matters none is more confidential than those relating to secret operations.

此（译注：用间）兵之要，三军之所恃而动也。
Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move.


There is some talk around of reducing the power of spies, but I think that would be a mistake. We should not reduce the power of spies just to make things safer for Netters. The extreme risk of playing EE is one of its main attractions. If there was no risk, and everything was safer, there would be nobody playing at all.

It wouldnt make it safer for netters, they would still get raped. It would make it more difficult to just CD someones troops to 1/3 the break though.

I hear Gerdler talking here and he likes playing with no spies. If you play with no spies you deserve to get raped. Don't take all the risk out of the game. Same thing with suiciders. If you go around farming the untagged you deserve suiciders. Don't make the game safer because you think it will make more people play. It will just wreck the game.

You can get a top ten and still have decent spies. And you can sometimes use diplomacy and get a top ten without spies. I oppose making the game significantly safer, and I totally oppose making it safer for people who pay, if that is one of the plans for the "Patron Accounts" that I've heard mentioned.

Getafix, you bring good points for why not to make changes other than the ones that are being suggested, but these change suggestions wouldn't really affect the status quo in that regard. What it would do in my mind is change the power balance between a well built war country and a badly built one, so that someone who did spend time.

In regards to netting, I have played casher, farmer/oiler and techer while netting on 1a. I have won with techer and FFO. As far as I know you have gotten T10s with techer but never with a strategy that required lots of land to compete. So what you are suggesting as the only viable play style is only possible to do reasonable well with with a techer, and even as a techer can't win unless everyone you are competing with gets into war or gets suicided. The changes that are being suggested will actually HELP MAKE YOUR PLAYSTYLE MORE COMPETETIVE WITH MINE, AT THE EXPENSE OF ME AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOU AND THOSE WHO PLAY LIKE YOU.
I scream and put this in caps because it cannot be overstated. If you have read the changes you will see this.
If the changes go through your country will be more well defended for cheaper while I will still be just as defenceless unless I move towards your playstyle. I'm confident that I can adapt to it. But the reason I want these changes are mainly to make war less of a stale and endless string of GSs. :)

Anyone that says the suggestions re: spal is about making things safer for netters is listening to people (Neil) that have not even attempted to understand the proposed changes to the formulas. The proposed changes will not make things safer for netters. If a war country hits netters with the changes, the netter will be hit just as hard as they are now. One proposed formula is spies*acres^(-1/2).

Here are a few iterations of this proposed formula vs SPAL: (@ 10000 "spy power)

Spies Acres Spy power (Proposed) SPAL (current) MU Spy w/ new formula
316,228 1,000 10,000 316 0.031622777
1,000,000 10,000 10,000 100 0.01
1,414,214 20,000 10,000 71 0.007071068
1,732,051 30,000 10,000 58 0.005773503
2,000,000 40,000 10,000 50 0.005
2,236,068 50,000 10,000 45 0.004472136
2,449,490 60,000 10,000 41 0.004082483
2,645,751 70,000 10,000 38 0.003779645
2,828,427 80,000 10,000 35 0.003535534
3,000,000 90,000 10,000 33 0.003333333
3,162,278 100,000 10,000 32 0.003162278
3,316,625 110,000 10,000 30 0.003015113
3,464,102 120,000 10,000 29 0.002886751
3,605,551 130,000 10,000 28 0.002773501
3,741,657 140,000 10,000 27 0.002672612
3,872,983 150,000 10,000 26 0.002581989
4,000,000 160,000 10,000 25 0.0025
4,123,106 170,000 10,000 24 0.002425356
4,242,641 180,000 10,000 24 0.002357023
4,358,899 190,000 10,000 23 0.002294157
4,472,136 200,000 10,000 22 0.002236068


You'll notice that for a "netting" country at 200k acres to achieve the same spy power as a 100 spal, 10k acre, trash war country, it will cost them almost 3.5 mill in expenses per turn - and that is with 10x more spies than a netter currently holds. Not unfair at all.

There has been talk about reducing power of things like CD's. Considering most netters run 0 troops, or close thereto, that is not something that hurts netters - it just changes the dynamic of war countries a little bit.

Gerdler, I know that you have different playstyles at different times, just like I do. But I usually have decent spal even when netting, and that means I have a lot of top tens but not so many wins as you. You like having low spal when you are netting, and using whatever strategems you can to avoid the necessity of making your own spyops, such using your teammates spyops, and using calculations from knowledge of the bot patterns. I usually get my own spyops.

I don't know what changes are coming up exactly, I guess we'll find out. I hope that whatever changes are coming don't make this game less risky because if there wasn't the risk of having all your work of a month of netting go down the drain, there would be no excitement. There would be no incentive to work very hard at diplomatic relations either.

Diplomatic relations?

How many of the suicides that has happened over the past ~3 years could have been prevented with diplomacy you think?

The ones who suicide have in 9 times out of 10 already decided whom to hit before taking a single turn and can get farmed by others and will still hit whoever is their intended target regardless. The reasons are usually either 5-15 year old crap, pure jealousy and/or just griefing for fun regardless of feelings towards the person they hit. I imagine some people think its fun because its so easy and these players usually can't achieve anything else they set their mind to in this game, so suiciding is their only chance to make an impact and they have nothing else to play for.

With regards to making your own spy ops I'm constantly telling LaFers that spy a lot how to play without spying, and I have zero dependency on ops by others to do my grabbing. That said since the ops are there I don't really see whats so wrong with using them to my benefit as I have done for a grand total of 1 grab this set so far for instance. :)

I think LAF has been farming untagged players for years , and that you create your own suiciders mostly. But I agree that some people just have a general grudge every one. You are partly right, but not completely.

I have a top 10 with farmer with lots of land during the land trading era. And I wasn't one of them.

You are a spyop thief! :)

This is why I question your motives when you want to change the game's spyop rules.

I miss land trading, it got people to work together.

I'd love to try some land trading but its hard to make it worthwhile these days.

People still do it on ffa. I mean, it's literally the least viable strat possible (I haven't worked out the math but I'm pretty sure allx is better just from looking at their countries), but people do it....

Anyways, still waiting to hear how the proposed changes help netters with the given formula.

You won't sin because it's all theoretical. People arent sittimg down with the proposed formulas and actually doing math, just as many wardogs rarely do while stocking.

The opposition of said formulas represents a complete lack of understanding of them, and a lack of desire to test them as you and I have.

It's blatantly obvious that these formulas will not effect netters in the most remote sense. They'll be just as easy to suicide and it will take no risk out of it. Therefore the ONLY effect is IMPROVING WAR.

These will improve war because it will no longer be viable to be a 5k acre country with 550k spies to take down a 50k acre country with 5m. The 5k acre country will still be able to take down even a player like getafix who runs around 20 or 30 spal on 80k or 100k acres. He's still not safe. As you can see from Sins list, a 100k acre country would need almost 4m spies to prevent grief. So the risk is not even a factor. The risk for netters will be exactly identical.

What the changes will do, is make it more effective to build a big strong war country, rather than being able to nerf your acres and take down anyone in the game. There will be incentives for war players to keep building in war and try to escape over the top of their enemies while running a country with balanced expenses and that is it.

I think in some ways, people just don't like the suggestions coming from gerdler, when in reality he enjoys war greatly and wants to see it improved for the same reasons I do.

The most viable of these are as follows Getafix. Punch them into a calculator:

Spy Expenses = 1/(1 + Networth/200000000)
Current formula = (1 + Networth/200000000)

This would essentially lower the expenses of spies as you get more. The price at low volume will be about the same, but as you get a pile of spies, rather than having the cost of them basically double every 5m, they will be reduced by 1/3. This doesn't affect netters as they will still be the most expensive unit and likely not taken. When you run around 30 spal geta, we're talking about a reduction of perhaps $1m per turn in expenses. Its not nearly enough to make them a commodity for netters.

Spy Power: spies*acres^(-1/2)
Current formula: spies/acres

As you can see from sin's grid, it just allows a person with 50k acres to be on a level playing field expense per acre with a person with 5k acres. Currently its easier to run high spal on low acres. Balancing the ability to run high spal on high acres will make people go for big countries rather than 5k uber restarts, but will not affect netters as its unlikely they will have 100+ spal ever anyways. And as has been pointed out, this is more close to Mehul's e2025 formula than what we have now.

A reduction of CD from 4% to 3% of troops

20 CDs & 7 demos current break: 32%
20 CDs & 7 demos suggested formula break: 38%

Fighting over a 6% reduction in break seems silly to me, but I'll bite. There isn't really a good reason for CD to be more powerful than any other ops. While its subtle, that 600k troops for every ten million could make a pretty big difference in outgrowing your enemies, but again does not make it easy for netters to have them, nor does it make them safer in the least bit.

It seriously annoys me that the opposition to these are plainly hypotheticals based on old terminology and who is in LaF. I've yet to hear one reason why these are bad, aside from people saying "it will be easy for laf" and not providing a single instance of how it benefits them whatsoever. Use the fluffing formulas to describe how the formulas should be changed or unchanged. Not some old descriptions of war and your opinion of LaF. Imo its unfortunate Gerdler is supporting the ideas of the more personally invested, intelligent war players. Because if he'd just say sof is right they'd probably actually test the fluff and give them a chance.

In fact, I hereby change the reasons I support these changes. From now on, the only reason I support these changes is because Makinso must have a hot wife for his ugly ass to make such cute children. While this may appear to have no relevance whatsoever to the formulas, I'm thinking it's more topical and palatable for the community.

I gave u a reason it makes people be held accountable for lack of spies be it in war or a suicider . They would have to make spies or spend more stock to negate the losses.

The hell are you trying to say?

Youd still need spies to war and would still be held accountable to your lack thereof. That doesn't change. Again. Actually look at sins post, or at least attempt to try the math for what you think is going to happen and see if it's true (which it isnt). Good lord.

Use the damn formula to explain what you mean. How does that change at all?

Your hypotheticals and speculations are still not at all related to the actual math. It's a total Maki's hot wife defense.

Hey u asked for a reason I gave u one. Sure I didn't back it up with math. But I gave u a reason. Don't get ur panties in a bunch when u got what u asked for just didn't get what u wanted

I'm asking for anyone, literally anyone, to back up what they're saying using the actual formulas. You've still not done that.

Use the ACTUAL FORMULAS to explain why they should or shouldn't change. Just once. For me. One real in game description of what you believe is flawed about it. Something in particular that will change. I can speculate the Maki's hot wife defense too, but it isn't helpful. It seems like currently you're just speculating based on a lack of understanding of the formulas. I'm asking you to provide a real example of something that would change that you don't like. Not a blind guess based on nothing.

I told u my theory on stock countries replacing cd stock long enough until the enemy is dead no I didn't give #s. I'm don't waste time doing math that isn't going to stop what's in motion. And btw I was the one who suggested 3% for Cd instead of 2%

as long as its a few % higher than your team mates when a suicider is choosing his targets . . .

yep.

Not only that but if cd was narfed all the way to 2%, were still only talking about under 2m troops per 10. Should be peanuts to a well stocked country. They'll have no trouble rebuying whatsoever.

To put things in terms of oil rigs, and a sell price around $150, were talking about less than 7k acres in buildings. Meaning i can replace 2m troops per day with just owning 7k labs/rigs/farms. It's not significant enough to effect what a country over 10k acres can replace even at 2%....

A country taking 35 CDs per day would need only about $80m per day less to replace troops back to 10m if it were 3% instead of 4%. I hear your point I suppose, I just don't think it is significant enough to give a fluff....seems like a small issue caused by solving a larger issue.

If dropping CDs to 3% is a hard pass tho, I think changing the way spy power is calculated and spy expenses to the above formulas would only serve to make wars both less endless and more in the spirit of the old rules where building a good war country used to matter. Since anyone can hit anyone endlessly now, good building in wars has a lessened point, and activity and number of GS attacks are the main determinant of victory. That's dumb, and good building should return to having more of a factor as it did in the old days.

I don't think it matters who is supporting what if one side has good arguements and the other side shows a clear lack of understanding the current and proposed formulas alike. EE is not a democracy, instead the devs are going to try to improve it and they will form their opinion based on solid arguementation.

SoFs anger towards me is because we fought back harder than they intended. The defence mechanism is to get angry at a public figure rather than looking over how they could have played it differently. It really has very little to do with me other than that I'm public.

I don't have any anger towards u or any other lafers that I'm aware of. But ur half right. The people who decide what gets put into this game or changed listen to their friends. While I'm not good with math like the rest of u. I do know dragon is. And he has given plenty of ideas on discord to bug and pang and not a single one of his ideas I read that night alone have made it into this game or discussion for making it

Ur a little I'm always right for my taste but I don't dislike u. Ur a very skilled player far better then me. And definitely far better then I care to try to be. Directed at gerdler . Current or former lafers I would claim have been first with at 1 point or would talk cordial with them : Don Goku s|snake downsay chewi ingle commados requiem Koh en4cer just to name a few

I've messaged dragon for him to have an opinion on the ui forum, and mentioned directly here that I'd like to know his opinion....

If he gave some good ideas in a rando conversation that are more effective than the formulas listed here, I'd be absolutely into discussing them with people here.

The problem is, because none of those are listed in the appropriate thread discussing it, they aren't taken as seriously and the community doesn't get a chance to discuss it on the whole.

If you can remember some of his suggestions, I'm still very intrigued for his input.

I could probably look for it on my laptop or phone logs if I could figure out how to Ctrl f

Hahahaha. Nailed it. +1

<3

Thanks for posting the proposed formula changes Sinistril. The first time I saw them was in the middle of my discussion with Gerdler, up above. It doesn't sound too drastic.

I still think spies should be very high powered, like I said, and stand by Sun Tzu :) And I like Gerdler and always enjoy debating with him, but he and I have different views on spies and spyops, so I was a bit worried that you guys were planning to do something major with the spies.

Always good to see Derrick get his panties in a knot!

Keep up the good work Developers, and thanks for your efforts

Yeah most of the proposed changes will actually keep spies as powerful (aside from a small reduction to CD power) but just reduce their effect on countries carrying small amounts on small acres vs large amounts on large acres. Otherwise making them cheaper the more you have if anything makes spies even more powerful because the biggest countries will be able to hold them efficiently in war.

But, if people like you and me ever unknot our panties, this game will lose a good amount of its entertainment value I figure. Go hard or go outside haha

I run 500 to 1000 ICs all about my stat you got no clue when an idiot will suicide on you (aka Derrick)

I'd like countries with 0 ops to not be able to get ops failed on them and very low spies (Incase someone gets smart and gets 1 spy) to have that spy able to be killed via the appropriate op

200 minimum for war.

For stocks war thats about right. It's arguable whether getting 100 spal on 40k acres and then dropping to 20k or actually building 200 spal on 40k acres is more effective. But most active dogs do one or the other. Wallers tend to drop down, non-wallers shouldn't unless they burn stock fast to break early.

For me its very strat-dependent too. Not gonna go into any specifics there, tho.

200+ spal

0 for net, 100-300 for decent spal war expected, 500-1k+ for elite spy making ops like a boss