Dev Diary #14 - Counterintelligence 🛡️
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.
---
In the world of intelligence, nations usually bet on turtling strategy. Local defensive activity - counterintelligence (CI) - receives more resources and more staff over foreign espionage operations. British defensive MI5 numbered 4,053 people in 2016, whereas overseas-focused MI6/SIS had 2,594 employees. The discrepancy was even wider in the past. The Cold War has seen one of the most impressive counterintelligence organizations in history, with the top position occupied by ~200 thousand (!) CI officers in KGB.
This is mirrored by the design of Espiocracy. Many systems are built with counterintelligence in mind from day one. In fact, I could argue that the whole concept of the game is rooted in the observation that CI is the critical ingredient of fun, interaction, and competition in espionage systems. In the 14th dev diary, it becomes clear that counterintelligence naturally emerges from all the other systems explained previously.
[h2]Surveillance State[/h2]
Following the Russian proverb "trust, but check" (доверяй, но проверяй), surveillance is the foundation of CI in the game. It is developed as a kind of domestic infrastructure: mobile surveillance groups, embassy monitoring, observation points, mail interception, and other approaches (e.g. face detection in late gameplay). Denser CI network directly translates to a higher detection rate of foreign activities. The possible extent of surveillance and consequences are tied to the local political system and views, and can even lead to the reaction of politicians and population, akin to the case of CIA's MKCHAOS.
Special attention is given to national borders. Borders are the main risk point of foreign operations. The lack of green borders and rigorous border control are the first lines of defense. It's no coincidence that KGB, in addition to espionage activities, was also responsible for guarding the borders. Here, the player can decide between a hands-on KGB model (directly spending resources) and a separate governmental institution (lobbying for a certain standard of security). The latter action, lobbying, can be extended to laws, which could limit migration from specific countries, introduce visas, or even shut down borders to 99% of the world (North Korea simulator, ultimate turtling experience).
Two actor types play important role in counterintelligence. Every country has law enforcement forces - their size, strength, influence, infiltration can assist or harm CI activities. Some countries also have secret police, separated from the intelligence sector even if it was historically the same organization. This is purposeful change, carefully designed to avoid forcing the player into playing as a brutal repressive organization that is still fresh in our memories. I think that it holds some (limited) historical merit, as operatives running foreign spy rings were usually completely separated from truncheon-equipped officers. At the same time, it also creates an interesting strategic situation: the player can decide between supporting a repressive organization (which assists CI to some extent but is detrimental to the population) and limiting its influence (which harms CI but liberates fellow citizens).
[h2]Foreign Assets[/h2]
Methods used offensively by other players can also be exploited for defensive purposes.
Starting with contacts, the list of actors cooperating with foreign intelligence agencies is one of the most prized strategic materials in the game (the list of traitors!). With that evidence in hand, you can arrest, expel, dissolve - or turn actors into double agents, literally doubling the fun by providing false intel and seizing money funneled to the agent. However, you don't have to acquire this list physically. The conflict, as it should be in the espionage-focused world, already plays out in the mind: you can anticipate which actors are contacted, observe who became vulnerable to recruitment, who unnaturally gained larger influence, and prepare an ambush or a sting operation. Needless to say, it cuts both ways and an agile player will employ counter-counterintelligence tactics of deception.
Likewise, approximation of foreign targets can be used to prioritize protective operations or spy on foreign assets spying on the target (spy-ception). Speaking of which, other players will certainly have multiple physical assets in your country: infrastructure and operatives. This is one of the most important differences between standard grand strategy games and Espiocracy - player is under the state of constant invasion. There's no definite remedy, as even North Korea has espionage scandals every now and then. Foreign infrastructure can be only partially detected and destroyed, but usually, it's wiser to leave it under observation and catch agents red-handed. Some foreign operatives are noted and followed, your surveillance groups will work them out and gradually increase interception efficiency, but - again - simply eliminating them can cause more harm than good, as the known enemy is usually better than an unknown...
[h2]Intercepting Operations[/h2]
All of the mentioned mechanics culminate with protection against foreign operations.
Some of the CI activities establish risk points. Stricter border control or denser surveillance network is a risk known to the opposite player before launching an operation. This is deterrence in itself since the failure at a risk point can have huge consequences. Other CI measures provide intercepting capabilities. These differ from operation to operation, but, generally, better CI leads to earlier and more frequent interception of foreign operations. This allows the defending side to deploy direct countermeasures during the duration of an operation, such as the use of top operatives for CI purposes or special defensive approaches.
With proper counterintelligence in place, some foreign operations should end in the capture of operatives. In addition to the wealth of knowledge gathered from documents, spy gear, and uncovered conspiracy, player can decide about the fate of people in custody. Available decisions depend on details of the operation (e.g. whether diplomatic immunity was used) and local law (e.g. postwar Japan had no anti-espionage law). These are also applicable to foreign spies, moles, detected inside own intelligence agency (more on that probably in the future). Some of the options include:
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
This is the last dev diary about the basics of espionage in the near future. After connecting espiocratic dots, we'll return to the mechanics behind the world simulated by Espiocracy.
The next dev diary - "Decolonization" - will be posted on January 21st.
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:
---
"It's the oldest question of all. Who can spy on the spies?" - John le Carré
---
In the world of intelligence, nations usually bet on turtling strategy. Local defensive activity - counterintelligence (CI) - receives more resources and more staff over foreign espionage operations. British defensive MI5 numbered 4,053 people in 2016, whereas overseas-focused MI6/SIS had 2,594 employees. The discrepancy was even wider in the past. The Cold War has seen one of the most impressive counterintelligence organizations in history, with the top position occupied by ~200 thousand (!) CI officers in KGB.
This is mirrored by the design of Espiocracy. Many systems are built with counterintelligence in mind from day one. In fact, I could argue that the whole concept of the game is rooted in the observation that CI is the critical ingredient of fun, interaction, and competition in espionage systems. In the 14th dev diary, it becomes clear that counterintelligence naturally emerges from all the other systems explained previously.
[h2]Surveillance State[/h2]
Following the Russian proverb "trust, but check" (доверяй, но проверяй), surveillance is the foundation of CI in the game. It is developed as a kind of domestic infrastructure: mobile surveillance groups, embassy monitoring, observation points, mail interception, and other approaches (e.g. face detection in late gameplay). Denser CI network directly translates to a higher detection rate of foreign activities. The possible extent of surveillance and consequences are tied to the local political system and views, and can even lead to the reaction of politicians and population, akin to the case of CIA's MKCHAOS.
Special attention is given to national borders. Borders are the main risk point of foreign operations. The lack of green borders and rigorous border control are the first lines of defense. It's no coincidence that KGB, in addition to espionage activities, was also responsible for guarding the borders. Here, the player can decide between a hands-on KGB model (directly spending resources) and a separate governmental institution (lobbying for a certain standard of security). The latter action, lobbying, can be extended to laws, which could limit migration from specific countries, introduce visas, or even shut down borders to 99% of the world (North Korea simulator, ultimate turtling experience).
Two actor types play important role in counterintelligence. Every country has law enforcement forces - their size, strength, influence, infiltration can assist or harm CI activities. Some countries also have secret police, separated from the intelligence sector even if it was historically the same organization. This is purposeful change, carefully designed to avoid forcing the player into playing as a brutal repressive organization that is still fresh in our memories. I think that it holds some (limited) historical merit, as operatives running foreign spy rings were usually completely separated from truncheon-equipped officers. At the same time, it also creates an interesting strategic situation: the player can decide between supporting a repressive organization (which assists CI to some extent but is detrimental to the population) and limiting its influence (which harms CI but liberates fellow citizens).
[h2]Foreign Assets[/h2]
Methods used offensively by other players can also be exploited for defensive purposes.
Starting with contacts, the list of actors cooperating with foreign intelligence agencies is one of the most prized strategic materials in the game (the list of traitors!). With that evidence in hand, you can arrest, expel, dissolve - or turn actors into double agents, literally doubling the fun by providing false intel and seizing money funneled to the agent. However, you don't have to acquire this list physically. The conflict, as it should be in the espionage-focused world, already plays out in the mind: you can anticipate which actors are contacted, observe who became vulnerable to recruitment, who unnaturally gained larger influence, and prepare an ambush or a sting operation. Needless to say, it cuts both ways and an agile player will employ counter-counterintelligence tactics of deception.
Likewise, approximation of foreign targets can be used to prioritize protective operations or spy on foreign assets spying on the target (spy-ception). Speaking of which, other players will certainly have multiple physical assets in your country: infrastructure and operatives. This is one of the most important differences between standard grand strategy games and Espiocracy - player is under the state of constant invasion. There's no definite remedy, as even North Korea has espionage scandals every now and then. Foreign infrastructure can be only partially detected and destroyed, but usually, it's wiser to leave it under observation and catch agents red-handed. Some foreign operatives are noted and followed, your surveillance groups will work them out and gradually increase interception efficiency, but - again - simply eliminating them can cause more harm than good, as the known enemy is usually better than an unknown...
[h2]Intercepting Operations[/h2]
All of the mentioned mechanics culminate with protection against foreign operations.
Some of the CI activities establish risk points. Stricter border control or denser surveillance network is a risk known to the opposite player before launching an operation. This is deterrence in itself since the failure at a risk point can have huge consequences. Other CI measures provide intercepting capabilities. These differ from operation to operation, but, generally, better CI leads to earlier and more frequent interception of foreign operations. This allows the defending side to deploy direct countermeasures during the duration of an operation, such as the use of top operatives for CI purposes or special defensive approaches.
With proper counterintelligence in place, some foreign operations should end in the capture of operatives. In addition to the wealth of knowledge gathered from documents, spy gear, and uncovered conspiracy, player can decide about the fate of people in custody. Available decisions depend on details of the operation (e.g. whether diplomatic immunity was used) and local law (e.g. postwar Japan had no anti-espionage law). These are also applicable to foreign spies, moles, detected inside own intelligence agency (more on that probably in the future). Some of the options include:
- Various levels of interrogation
- Expulsion and persona non grata status
- Trial, conviction, years of prison or execution
- Covert murder
- Silent release
- Exchange of spies
- Reverting/doubling
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
This is the last dev diary about the basics of espionage in the near future. After connecting espiocratic dots, we'll return to the mechanics behind the world simulated by Espiocracy.
The next dev diary - "Decolonization" - will be posted on January 21st.
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:
---
"It's the oldest question of all. Who can spy on the spies?" - John le Carré