Infiltration

Secretly funding the enemy of your enemy bears risks.
The resources your subordinates dispatch to the target realm will need to get picked up and there's always someone who'll know who they come from.

Infiltration is a covert mission deigned to infiltrate the deepest sections of target realm in order to acquire information about their past trades.
One successful infiltration will never yield all the info available, nowhere near all of it.

But great opportunities come at great cost.
Success will be determined by taking enemy covert vs your covert. The ratios of these two powers are also the ratios for success/failure of said mission. However the failure chance gets automatically increased by 50%. So even if target has a tiny covert and you send a huge covert yourself, you still have slightly over 50% chance of loosing most of your spies.

% of lost spies is not yet final but will be around 70%

While i do think this is an AWESOME idea ... the 50 % failure chance is too high in my opinion.

What would be more reasonable is to make 25 % TOPS and introduce a special unit which can spy that, since individuals who do such infiltration should be highly trained and specialized.

What do you think?

potentially decreasing cost noted and will be considered

new unit is rejected.

Well actually yes, there is no need of a new unit since you'll be able to choose how many unit you send to suicide. just call them "infiltrators" if that make you feel better.... convert them into priest if they come back alive!^^""

dont like the loss ratio or the 50% chance ratio

big opportunity, big risk

true but i hope its not the same for all spying

this is only for reconing broker logs
recon will keep working as it is coded now, and sabotage will also work pretty much like on other games

I think your fail rate should depend on the ratio of your and enemy covert.

If I have let's say 4000 covert and enemy 1000, I should have the risk of 1/4 (25%) that my spies will fail.

70% death rate for failed action is TOO high, even 10% would be too high. I say it should be around 5%, afterall failing will be much easier and if coverts are similiar then the risk of failing is almost 100%, therefore only 5-10% of spies should be lost.

It would be already a lot, since 10% out of 2000 spies is 200!

If you want to keep it 70%, don't even bother coding it.

I think the fail risk should be between 10 and 30% .... based on the power ratio.

So if the opponent has 1000 power and you send 2000 power (let's say 2x power is enough to get a decent report) then you have 30% chance of failing.

If you send 5000 power so 5x then your chances are reduced to 20% and if you send 10000 power or more then the risk is just 10%.

This operation should have quite a high risk because the information you get is very sensitive and it's much much harder to get then a simple recon report.

The death rate is whatever it's going to end up, if it's too high then no one is forcing you to use the mission.

there will definitely never be a 100% success rate, and i'm even considering adding that you loose some spies even if you're successful.

Admin wrote:The death rate is whatever it's going to end up, if it's too high then no one is forcing you to use the mission.

there will definitely never be a 100% success rate, and i'm even considering adding that you loose some spies even if you're successful.

I'm fine with that, but if the cost outweighs the profit, what good is it?

I mean really, look at this a year from now. you got 10 mill spies, is losing 7 mill of them worth knowiny who someone traded with? NO, its not. After losses that severe you couldnt afford to wage war with them Evene IF you did find out who it was.

I dont mind a high loss on succesful attempts, but losses that high will make sure many will never use the feature and it will be a waste of coding.

...you can find a lot of things with the "Infitration"... which could stop someone`s "proffit" (lol i`m ammused how everyone thinks that every attack type should be for proffit) or increase yours.

I agree with Admin... the loses should be HUGE... over 70% for a failure and the failure rate should be between 10% to 50%

And don`t forget... that even sending spies in someones country is an agression... "Infiltration"... that is a severe agression... it`s not your bussiness who that country trades with. If it is, then be prepared to face the consequences.

Nomad wrote:I mean really, look at this a year from now. you got 10 mill spies, is losing 7 mill of them worth knowiny who someone traded with? NO, its not.

No but seriously, if something doesn't cover your costs, why engage in the mission in the first place?

the option will be there, whether someone uses it or not will be left for them to decide, you can be certain that it will get used.
Me likes trading, me likes profitsssss

I am against this update and I don't want it implemented.

There are four problems:

1) If there is a risk of high losses, like 70% in a failed mission then the update makes little sense.

2) If the losses are too low, then it will be too cheap to find out such important information.

It's practically impossible to find the right balance

3) Again this would bring a huge disadvantage to small players and a big advantage to big players.

4) No need to make the game more complicated than it is. We got enough missions. Too many some might say.



If you want to find out who is funding your enemies, I suggest you find out through other methods.

I still don't see it ever being used at that high a cost, its just pointless TBH.

I m for this update.

Personally i think people are looking at it in the wrong perspective.

In day to day usage... the update is useless due to the high risk. In alliance terms though..... its fantastic.

Imagine this: If The Imperium Empire was a vengeful hostile empire... we d seek peace with T.O.C, then proceed to secretly finance a single player/ small group of players to wage a war against T.O.C.

That way TIE stays out of the war and grows, while T.O.C sustains heavy losses fighting a insurgency - likewise if T.O.C was hostile and aggressive.... they could do the same to T.I.E.... or any other alliance/group of players could pull the same stunt to another alliance/group of players.

THIS is where this update comes in.

The costs & risks are massive.... but if for instance TIE were to secretly fund a third party to wage a insurgency against T.O.C - would those costs really be that large or massive if the UU killed/risked in the infiltration mission on the insurgent were to come from T.O.C itself - i.e. T.O.C's members all contributing to find out whether or not the insurgent was gaining external help?

Is the cost really that high or massive if TIE was the victim of a insurgency, and so to find out whether a third party was funding the insurgent we did the infiltration missions - splitting any losses between us?

Answer: In both cases - No, the costs aren't excessive.

I m sure admin knows where I m coming from... its the exact tactic Black Watch and The Commonwealth did on Dune wars to sponsor Jaylb to conduct a insurgency against him and the dynasty empire ... so this update does have real practical implications... and potentially MASSIVE consequences in stuff like black-ops for alliances etc.... lol

I like it.

I say 25% failure rate and you must be over the persons covert level to even stand a chance. A 15% flux on the covert action power to make it even harder to calculate the proper amount of spies needed to even try to see the brokers.

Then I would think 50% spies lost for a failed attempt and 10% lost for a successful attempt would make sense.

To defend the smaller players perhaps you can make it so you must send at least 50% to 100% of your total spies to check someone. That will prevent a person with a high base covert from seeing the smaller players with only risking 50k UU or so.

Reason I say 25% failure rate is that admin mentioned that you will get very little information from the actual reports. So odds are it will take more then 4 attempts to get what you are actually looking for meaning you will need some luck to get away without any fails and still managing to get the information you were actually seeking. Honestly when someone is being funded you can assume it will be 1 or 2 brokers that your hoping to see out of alot. I don't think many people do regular fundings as that would be viewed as feeding which is illegal and well they will be banned.

Vesper wrote:I like it.

I say 25% failure rate and you must be over the persons covert level to even stand a chance. A 15% flux on the covert action power to make it even harder to calculate the proper amount of spies needed to even try to see the brokers.

Then I would think 50% spies lost for a failed attempt and 10% lost for a successful attempt would make sense.

To defend the smaller players perhaps you can make it so you must send at least 50% to 100% of your total spies to check someone. That will prevent a person with a high base covert from seeing the smaller players with only risking 50k UU or so.

Reason I say 25% failure rate is that admin mentioned that you will get very little information from the actual reports. So odds are it will take more then 4 attempts to get what you are actually looking for meaning you will need some luck to get away without any fails and still managing to get the information you were actually seeking. Honestly when someone is being funded you can assume it will be 1 or 2 brokers that your hoping to see out of alot. I don't think many people do regular fundings as that would be viewed as feeding which is illegal and well they will be banned.

This gets a + from me

Well I can tell you, anyone get caught infiltrating me will regret it.