Dev Diary #17 - Interaction with Leader 🏛️
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.
---
New iteration of this set of mechanics was published under: DD#32 Intelligence Agencies 2.0
---
Hello there,
The Cold War was shaped by an extraordinary set of personalities: Truman, Stalin, Churchill, Eisenhower, Khrushchev, Kennedy, Castro... the list goes on and on! How do you incorporate them meaningfully in a strategy game?
Let's face it, historical rulers don't matter in strategy games. With the notable exception of Crusader Kings, leaders are usually reduced to a few bonuses and maluses, akin to +2 wood monthly from a lumber mill. This design choice stems directly from embedding the player as a nation spirit in the game world - after all, how could you limit the god king?
Espiocracy asks the opposite question: how could you override the decisions of Stalin or Mao? What's left of historical immersion if you can shoehorn Franco to the corner? Why French generals would threaten to invade France just for de Gaulle if he's only an appendix to the player? Are games always about playing out a boundless fantasy?
These issues sit at the very heart of the game and are solved by the primary design principle: player persona is an organization. Described already in The Vision in the context of coups and elections, it is also an honest attempt to make leaders matter on a strategic level. Practically speaking, every country has a leader, including the player's country. For the latter, there is a special set of mechanics, which can be summed up in one peculiar sentence - if you start in the USSR, Stalin is your boss.
[h2]Relationship[/h2]
A country leader is an actor (that is: has own views, goals, activity) tied to the player in the contact framework (that is: there is trust, meetings, diplomacy-like interaction).
Transcript: Widget about leader of the country. Features trust, recent interactions, existing commitments, available objectives, available decisions, and counterintelligence config.
This is strongly inspired by real-world relationship. Many rulers are close to their intelligence services. Some of them start the day with an intelligence brief, there's a direct line of communication between the spymaster and the leader, and this is also one of the first places to call in case of crisis. The relationship is even stronger for autocratic leaders.
Critical parameter of trust combines multiple meanings:
Higher trust directly leads to a higher budget and indirectly to the expansion of available decisions - trusting leader will more often take the advice at face value. On the other side of the spectrum, negative relation limits options, and dramatic loss of trust can even lead to soft game over in the form of dissolving intelligence agencies. There were two times in history when even CIA could have been dissolved after particularly large failures!
[h2]Decisions[/h2]
Grand-level decisions - launching wars or joining pacts - are always made by the leader of the country. Player, depending on developed trust, can be embedded in this decision-making process in a few different ways.
Transcript: New recommendation window. Description: Mobilization executed before a military conflict can significantly increase defensive capabilities. However, it is costly, disrupts the economy, and can be maintained only for a month. Recommend mobilization only if you believe that we will face military conflict (success condition). Otherwise, after a month of peace you will significantly lose credibility (failure condition). It will take 7 days to mobilize military to the proposed extent. After the description, in case of success player will gain trust, staff, and black budget; in case of failure player will lose trust, black budget, and SPI. Benes, country leader, comments: I will cautiously accept limited mobilization.
Proactively, you can recommend a decision. If it aligns well enough with the leader, you're good to go - if not, they will need convincing evidence, for instance in the form of casus belli. After this initial (and usually low) barrier is crossed, stakes are defined by the mechanic of "accountability": the leader is here to hold you accountable for your recommendations - a challenge in a challenge. If the war recommended by you ends up miserably for your country, you'll be facing huge repercussions. However, if it greatly enriches your country, you will be richly rewarded. Lower trust or an illogical decision (eg. attacking a larger country) usually means that the stakes will be higher.
[h2]Further Interaction[/h2]
Interaction is also initiated by the other side. The ruler - along with other leaders, government, political parties - may consider significant decisions and you will be:
These opinions, solicited from the player, will be also subject to accountability. Leader (and especially a council of actors) can go against player's advice, but it's more important to be on the right side of the history - for instance, suggesting "no go" before the war that later turns out to be a tremendous success will lead to significant loss of credibility in the eyes of the leader.
Transcript: Popup soliciting advice. Description: Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company. According to our intel, France, UK, and Israel plan military invasion to retake the canal. At the same time. USA and USSR oppose military intervention. What is your advice? Available decisions: Cease Arms Deal; Increase Shipment of Arms; Seek Mediation with France, UK, Israel; No Reaction.
Furthermore, sometimes the interaction will spill over to the player's area of expertise. The ruler can for instance try to drag the intelligence community into a shady activity, to influence a particular operation, to overstep the chain of command, to open Pandora's box of internal political interference, or even to blame the player for someone else's mistakes. These will follow ruler's traits and goal, creating a separate strategic decision space out of interaction with Eisenhower or Stalin.
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
Details of this system will certainly return in the future, for instance in the context of military conflicts. As always, screenshots are a work in progress, and mechanics will evolve during playtesting.
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:
---
"Do not play on the chessboard, play the opponent" - Garry Kasparov
---
New iteration of this set of mechanics was published under: DD#32 Intelligence Agencies 2.0
---
Hello there,
The Cold War was shaped by an extraordinary set of personalities: Truman, Stalin, Churchill, Eisenhower, Khrushchev, Kennedy, Castro... the list goes on and on! How do you incorporate them meaningfully in a strategy game?
Let's face it, historical rulers don't matter in strategy games. With the notable exception of Crusader Kings, leaders are usually reduced to a few bonuses and maluses, akin to +2 wood monthly from a lumber mill. This design choice stems directly from embedding the player as a nation spirit in the game world - after all, how could you limit the god king?
Espiocracy asks the opposite question: how could you override the decisions of Stalin or Mao? What's left of historical immersion if you can shoehorn Franco to the corner? Why French generals would threaten to invade France just for de Gaulle if he's only an appendix to the player? Are games always about playing out a boundless fantasy?
These issues sit at the very heart of the game and are solved by the primary design principle: player persona is an organization. Described already in The Vision in the context of coups and elections, it is also an honest attempt to make leaders matter on a strategic level. Practically speaking, every country has a leader, including the player's country. For the latter, there is a special set of mechanics, which can be summed up in one peculiar sentence - if you start in the USSR, Stalin is your boss.
[h2]Relationship[/h2]
A country leader is an actor (that is: has own views, goals, activity) tied to the player in the contact framework (that is: there is trust, meetings, diplomacy-like interaction).
Transcript: Widget about leader of the country. Features trust, recent interactions, existing commitments, available objectives, available decisions, and counterintelligence config.This is strongly inspired by real-world relationship. Many rulers are close to their intelligence services. Some of them start the day with an intelligence brief, there's a direct line of communication between the spymaster and the leader, and this is also one of the first places to call in case of crisis. The relationship is even stronger for autocratic leaders.
Critical parameter of trust combines multiple meanings:
- Base level of public opinion on intelligence agencies in the country
- Personal stance on intelligence sector
- Built by successes (eg. acquired war plans of the enemy)
- Lost after failures (eg. botched and publicized loss of an operative)
- Additionally expanded by chasing personal ruler's objectives (eg. Kennedy's obsession with assassinating Castro)
- Most importantly, modified by decisions and other interactions with the leader
Higher trust directly leads to a higher budget and indirectly to the expansion of available decisions - trusting leader will more often take the advice at face value. On the other side of the spectrum, negative relation limits options, and dramatic loss of trust can even lead to soft game over in the form of dissolving intelligence agencies. There were two times in history when even CIA could have been dissolved after particularly large failures!
[h2]Decisions[/h2]
Grand-level decisions - launching wars or joining pacts - are always made by the leader of the country. Player, depending on developed trust, can be embedded in this decision-making process in a few different ways.
Transcript: New recommendation window. Description: Mobilization executed before a military conflict can significantly increase defensive capabilities. However, it is costly, disrupts the economy, and can be maintained only for a month. Recommend mobilization only if you believe that we will face military conflict (success condition). Otherwise, after a month of peace you will significantly lose credibility (failure condition). It will take 7 days to mobilize military to the proposed extent. After the description, in case of success player will gain trust, staff, and black budget; in case of failure player will lose trust, black budget, and SPI. Benes, country leader, comments: I will cautiously accept limited mobilization.Proactively, you can recommend a decision. If it aligns well enough with the leader, you're good to go - if not, they will need convincing evidence, for instance in the form of casus belli. After this initial (and usually low) barrier is crossed, stakes are defined by the mechanic of "accountability": the leader is here to hold you accountable for your recommendations - a challenge in a challenge. If the war recommended by you ends up miserably for your country, you'll be facing huge repercussions. However, if it greatly enriches your country, you will be richly rewarded. Lower trust or an illogical decision (eg. attacking a larger country) usually means that the stakes will be higher.
[h2]Further Interaction[/h2]
Interaction is also initiated by the other side. The ruler - along with other leaders, government, political parties - may consider significant decisions and you will be:
- Asked for advice (eg. how to react to a particular crisis)
- Given the ability to convince the leader with strategic materials (eg. to drive them away from pointless invasion)
- Participate in war-room-like conferences (in some political systems, eg. number of actors and subactors weighing in with "go" or "no go" before a war)
These opinions, solicited from the player, will be also subject to accountability. Leader (and especially a council of actors) can go against player's advice, but it's more important to be on the right side of the history - for instance, suggesting "no go" before the war that later turns out to be a tremendous success will lead to significant loss of credibility in the eyes of the leader.
Transcript: Popup soliciting advice. Description: Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company. According to our intel, France, UK, and Israel plan military invasion to retake the canal. At the same time. USA and USSR oppose military intervention. What is your advice? Available decisions: Cease Arms Deal; Increase Shipment of Arms; Seek Mediation with France, UK, Israel; No Reaction.Furthermore, sometimes the interaction will spill over to the player's area of expertise. The ruler can for instance try to drag the intelligence community into a shady activity, to influence a particular operation, to overstep the chain of command, to open Pandora's box of internal political interference, or even to blame the player for someone else's mistakes. These will follow ruler's traits and goal, creating a separate strategic decision space out of interaction with Eisenhower or Stalin.
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
Details of this system will certainly return in the future, for instance in the context of military conflicts. As always, screenshots are a work in progress, and mechanics will evolve during playtesting.
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:
---
"Do not play on the chessboard, play the opponent" - Garry Kasparov