Dev Diary #7 - Contacts & Targets 🤝
What's happening / TLDR: Developer diaries introduce details of Espiocracy - Cold War strategy game in which you play as an intelligence agency. You can catch up with the most important dev diary (The Vision) and find out more on Steam page.
---
Note: Mechanics described below were updated in 22nd dev diary "Contacts & Targets 2.0".
---
In a few comments, Espiocracy has been compared to the 80s game Balance of Power.
Transcript: World map with areas divided to peaceful, terrorist, under guerilla wars and under civil wars.
This classic strategy came out when the Cold War was still in full swing. However, it was criticized in a scientific publication for misrepresenting the history (more here). It was reasonable objection - the game simplified American-Soviet conflict to attacks and coercion, reducing constructive actions (such as negotiations) or treating them even as destructive (such as financial aid). In the real world, Cold War was not only about Cuban Crisis and coups, but also (mainly?) about the clash between two economic systems where all the other countries were tempted by economic miracles.
This critique could be reverberated when reviewing espionage systems in game designs. Power of destructive operations is rarely balanced with constructive actions, despite the latter constituting the majority of espionage work IRL.
Analysis of espionage systems shouldn't stop at the balance. Spying has been represented as a largely random endeavor, with no anticipation nor plans, limited (mana-based or time-based) preparation, almost non-existent counterintelligence, surprising lack of interaction, and worst of all - lack of real strategic decisions. Game designers shouldn't be (fiercely) blamed for that state, since espionage is typically an afterthought in games focused on other topics. But I wouldn't have that excuse in the game called Espiocracy!
[h2]TLDR[/h2]
Novel espionage system proposed by Espiocracy introduces long-term gameplay, large constructive possibilities, and series of connected strategic decisions. 1/3 part has been already described in the previous dev diary (Actors).
Transcript: Pie chart divided to three parts: actors, contacts and targets (as a one part), and the last part not described yet.
The second third, in short, is a collection of long-term connections: player can target or contact (or both) the actors, investing resources over longer periods of time.
[h2]Targets[/h2]
Let's start with targets, since they are closer to the popular understanding of espionage.
Targets represent surveillance, research, team following the actor, operatives recruiting people close to the actor. The word "target" frequents military dictionaries and can be immediately understood by invoking CIA actions after 9/11 where Osama Bin Laden became the absolute top target on their list.
Long-term targeting leads to the acquisition of knowledge (tactical intelligence) which in turn unlocks various operation types and improves their outcomes. Intuitively, long-term surveillance of the target enables successful attack. But it's not (only) a waiting game - during targeting, opportunities arise, events give the player ability to interact, there are more and less risky approaches.
To streamline the experience, not only actors are targeted but also countries. You can prioritize targeting USSR as a whole country over targeting Joseph Stalin, leading to long-term acquisition of country-wide sources that will outlive the Man of Steel.
Limited number of targets and importance of their ordering (more on that at the end) leads to a multitude of strategies: covering countries or covering specific threatening actors, targeting opposite intelligence agencies, turtling by targeting many actors inside own country, focusing on proxy wars, meddling in relations between superpowers, choosing between threats to ideology and to the country, or even being a gun for hire (targeting on behalf of another agency).
[h2]Contacts[/h2]
Contacts are the missing constructive side of espionage which - as far as I'm aware - hasn't been really represented in strategy games featuring spying. This fact on its own is surprising, given that many real-world intelligence agencies have formalized notion of intelligence contacts, and that any good spy book (whether it's le Carre or Mitrokhin) teaches you that spying revolves around contacts.
Contacts represent long-term relation between the player and actors: establishment of communication channel (non-trivial - contact attempt can be rejected), meetings, trust, exchange of information, and various direct interactions. They are implied to be covert, which means that you can contact both friends and foes. In fact, the latter was one of the main inspirations for the design: allegedly, British intelligence services contacted Islamic extremist organizations in the UK and struck a deal in which they promised them freedom of operation in exchange for not endangering British interests and citizens. In Espiocracy, you'll be able to do exactly that.
And many more things:
Similarly to targets, long-term engagement leads to acquisition of the key parameter (trust) which unlocks more intimate actions. However, here this development is even more reliant on explicit decisions - there are certain barriers, which can be crossed only after the player decides to engage more heavily, back the actor in a specific conflict, or cross some boundary in relations. And, as the name of the parameter suggests, trust can be not only acquired but also lost.
Overall, contacts are a long-term game of multipolar diplomacy, where betting on the right horses can provide hefty returns. For instance, a political actor can be groomed - supported, protected, trusted - and reach high-ranking position or even become the leader of a country (maybe even own country ). You can also expect the classic dilemma of status quo, where it may be actually better to avoid elimination of a well-known enemy - contacted, targeted, predictable - because that could allow a new unknown enemy to enter the stage, requiring new expenses and operations.
To top it off, contacts are fully interactive on both receiving ends - there are opportunities and responsibilities, you can expect that some contacts will tip you off about upcoming events, attempt to exploit you, ask for help in times of troubles, or even propose participation in morally and legally doubtful endeavors. Actors can also attempt to establish contact with you on their own (this will be however fully configurable, on the spectrum from completely inaccessible to encouraging walk-ins in embassies).
[h2]The List[/h2]
All contacts and targets of an agency build a list. The order is critical - top target will receive most resources and most attention of the personnel - and serves as a handy way to abstract away micromanagement. Number of possible contacts and targets is determined by the number of operatives, with targets requiring more resources (as constant surveillance requires obviously more attention than rare one-to-one meetings).
The existence of such lists in every agency provides an obvious counterintelligence mechanic. The list can be approximated externally or directly acquired as intelligence material, and then used for direct counter-operations - such as reverting a known contact into double agent, or preparing an ambush in case a known target is attacked.
Contact & target system provides one more, even stronger case for counterintelligence. Since these actions are carried out by intelligence agencies, they can be contacted directly to sort out the matters. Even at the peak of the Cold War, KGB and CIA maintained communication channel. One can also think about more complex interaction between agencies - such as joint operations, training, sharing intelligence and technology, borrowing resources, signing armistices, or even purposefully deceiving the opposite side.
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
The topic of intelligence agencies will be further explored in the next dev diary, to be posted on October 15th.
If you're not already wishlisting Espiocracy, consider doing it:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1670650/Espiocracy/
There is also a small community around Espiocracy:
---
"In a war of machines, the human element is, in the long run, more important than the machines themselves" - William Donovan
---
Note: Mechanics described below were updated in 22nd dev diary "Contacts & Targets 2.0".
---
In a few comments, Espiocracy has been compared to the 80s game Balance of Power.
Transcript: World map with areas divided to peaceful, terrorist, under guerilla wars and under civil wars.This classic strategy came out when the Cold War was still in full swing. However, it was criticized in a scientific publication for misrepresenting the history (more here). It was reasonable objection - the game simplified American-Soviet conflict to attacks and coercion, reducing constructive actions (such as negotiations) or treating them even as destructive (such as financial aid). In the real world, Cold War was not only about Cuban Crisis and coups, but also (mainly?) about the clash between two economic systems where all the other countries were tempted by economic miracles.
This critique could be reverberated when reviewing espionage systems in game designs. Power of destructive operations is rarely balanced with constructive actions, despite the latter constituting the majority of espionage work IRL.
Analysis of espionage systems shouldn't stop at the balance. Spying has been represented as a largely random endeavor, with no anticipation nor plans, limited (mana-based or time-based) preparation, almost non-existent counterintelligence, surprising lack of interaction, and worst of all - lack of real strategic decisions. Game designers shouldn't be (fiercely) blamed for that state, since espionage is typically an afterthought in games focused on other topics. But I wouldn't have that excuse in the game called Espiocracy!
[h2]TLDR[/h2]
Novel espionage system proposed by Espiocracy introduces long-term gameplay, large constructive possibilities, and series of connected strategic decisions. 1/3 part has been already described in the previous dev diary (Actors).
Transcript: Pie chart divided to three parts: actors, contacts and targets (as a one part), and the last part not described yet.The second third, in short, is a collection of long-term connections: player can target or contact (or both) the actors, investing resources over longer periods of time.
[h2]Targets[/h2]
Let's start with targets, since they are closer to the popular understanding of espionage.
Targets represent surveillance, research, team following the actor, operatives recruiting people close to the actor. The word "target" frequents military dictionaries and can be immediately understood by invoking CIA actions after 9/11 where Osama Bin Laden became the absolute top target on their list.
Long-term targeting leads to the acquisition of knowledge (tactical intelligence) which in turn unlocks various operation types and improves their outcomes. Intuitively, long-term surveillance of the target enables successful attack. But it's not (only) a waiting game - during targeting, opportunities arise, events give the player ability to interact, there are more and less risky approaches.
To streamline the experience, not only actors are targeted but also countries. You can prioritize targeting USSR as a whole country over targeting Joseph Stalin, leading to long-term acquisition of country-wide sources that will outlive the Man of Steel.
Limited number of targets and importance of their ordering (more on that at the end) leads to a multitude of strategies: covering countries or covering specific threatening actors, targeting opposite intelligence agencies, turtling by targeting many actors inside own country, focusing on proxy wars, meddling in relations between superpowers, choosing between threats to ideology and to the country, or even being a gun for hire (targeting on behalf of another agency).
[h2]Contacts[/h2]
Contacts are the missing constructive side of espionage which - as far as I'm aware - hasn't been really represented in strategy games featuring spying. This fact on its own is surprising, given that many real-world intelligence agencies have formalized notion of intelligence contacts, and that any good spy book (whether it's le Carre or Mitrokhin) teaches you that spying revolves around contacts.
Contacts represent long-term relation between the player and actors: establishment of communication channel (non-trivial - contact attempt can be rejected), meetings, trust, exchange of information, and various direct interactions. They are implied to be covert, which means that you can contact both friends and foes. In fact, the latter was one of the main inspirations for the design: allegedly, British intelligence services contacted Islamic extremist organizations in the UK and struck a deal in which they promised them freedom of operation in exchange for not endangering British interests and citizens. In Espiocracy, you'll be able to do exactly that.
And many more things:
- support financially, technologically, by passing intelligence materials, by lending operatives
- protect in terms of physical and counterintelligence security
- smuggle people and weapons, arm organizations
- use contacts in operations to improve outcomes and lower risks
- escalate or deescalate conflicts
- threaten, make ultimatums, enforce rules
- influence or even control actions of the actor
Similarly to targets, long-term engagement leads to acquisition of the key parameter (trust) which unlocks more intimate actions. However, here this development is even more reliant on explicit decisions - there are certain barriers, which can be crossed only after the player decides to engage more heavily, back the actor in a specific conflict, or cross some boundary in relations. And, as the name of the parameter suggests, trust can be not only acquired but also lost.
Overall, contacts are a long-term game of multipolar diplomacy, where betting on the right horses can provide hefty returns. For instance, a political actor can be groomed - supported, protected, trusted - and reach high-ranking position or even become the leader of a country (maybe even own country ). You can also expect the classic dilemma of status quo, where it may be actually better to avoid elimination of a well-known enemy - contacted, targeted, predictable - because that could allow a new unknown enemy to enter the stage, requiring new expenses and operations.
To top it off, contacts are fully interactive on both receiving ends - there are opportunities and responsibilities, you can expect that some contacts will tip you off about upcoming events, attempt to exploit you, ask for help in times of troubles, or even propose participation in morally and legally doubtful endeavors. Actors can also attempt to establish contact with you on their own (this will be however fully configurable, on the spectrum from completely inaccessible to encouraging walk-ins in embassies).
[h2]The List[/h2]
All contacts and targets of an agency build a list. The order is critical - top target will receive most resources and most attention of the personnel - and serves as a handy way to abstract away micromanagement. Number of possible contacts and targets is determined by the number of operatives, with targets requiring more resources (as constant surveillance requires obviously more attention than rare one-to-one meetings).
The existence of such lists in every agency provides an obvious counterintelligence mechanic. The list can be approximated externally or directly acquired as intelligence material, and then used for direct counter-operations - such as reverting a known contact into double agent, or preparing an ambush in case a known target is attacked.
Contact & target system provides one more, even stronger case for counterintelligence. Since these actions are carried out by intelligence agencies, they can be contacted directly to sort out the matters. Even at the peak of the Cold War, KGB and CIA maintained communication channel. One can also think about more complex interaction between agencies - such as joint operations, training, sharing intelligence and technology, borrowing resources, signing armistices, or even purposefully deceiving the opposite side.
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
The topic of intelligence agencies will be further explored in the next dev diary, to be posted on October 15th.
If you're not already wishlisting Espiocracy, consider doing it:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1670650/Espiocracy/
There is also a small community around Espiocracy:
---
"In a war of machines, the human element is, in the long run, more important than the machines themselves" - William Donovan