Dev Diary #29 - Conventional Wars 🪖
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.
---
Espiocracy is not a wargame. Conventional conflicts follow the KISS principle and are reducible to one sentence: free-moving NATO counters fighting in simulated battles. Design focus, as always, is closer to the unconventional side of the world - Espiocracy is (partially) a special forces game!
Modern special operation forces (SOF) were forged in the fire of WW2, right before the start date of the game. In a true homage to SOE commandos, OSS paramilitary camps, CIA green berets, and many later units, you will be able to pull off famous special operations from WW2 and beyond - parachute deep behind enemy lines, blow up critical targets, pave the way for routes of invasion, or disable dangerous capabilities of the enemy - during conventional conflicts.
[h2]Military Forces[/h2]
The player controls special branch of local military forces. Other branches usually include land army, air force, and navy. Each of them is characterized by:
Branches are funded from the state budget, changed by initiatives of significant actors (even to the point of favoring branches, eg. Eisenhower advocating for strong air force), and external context (such as technological paradigms or regional instability). In the event of war, branches are generally combined and fight under highest local denominator - brigade, division, corps, or army.
[h2]Before a War[/h2]
Every country maintains a set of war plans. Their existence and details follow national interests, webs of alliances, state of military, temporary opportunities, and sometimes even personal grudges of leading actors. At the very least, there are defensive war plans which contain largely standard data (such as C&C, bases and their protection, defense lines, useful retreat and counterattack paths) and their main value lies in protection/stealing. Offensive war plans, on the other hand, are highly prized materials, prepared both "just in case" and before real operation, which - when captured by the defending side - can decide about the fate of war.
One of the inspirations behind war plans in the game
Players take part in unconventional planning before real wars - on the level of special forces and nuclear targeting (next dev diary). Utilizing player agency slightly larger than real life, other branches generally follow opportunities established by the player. For instance, special forces breaching particular part of border will be followed by conventional forces, sabotage on particular direction will be assisted by air assaults, strategic reconnaissance and its results will guide movement of armies, and so on.
[h2]Course of a War[/h2]
After a war is declared or border skirmishes evolve into larger conflict, the war relies on two strategic halves. Belligerents compete for strategic targets on the ground: cities, airports, railway junctions, sea ports, and high value actors such a head of state. They are defended, conquered, denied (by encirclement, strategic bombing... or nukes), and then used to enable strategic movement which generally means offensives and counteroffensives (and lack of movement - holding the line), naturally leading to direct simulated battles.
Rapid offensives and counteroffensives of the Korean War
Inspired by highly mobile warfare of Korean War, Operation Desert Storm, and Seven Days to the River Rhine, combined units swiftly cover larger swaths of terrain both when pursuing the enemy and when retreating. Actions are dependent on the state of military branches (which can significantly change during the conflict) and terrain details (to, i.a., approximate strategic role of the Fulda Gap).
After initial (planned) special operations are carried out, the player is able to react on the battlefield near both described halves. You can conduct raids on strategic targets, rescue protected strategic assets (from hostage situations to easing encirclement), harass movement via ambushes and sabotage, enable new opportunities, train local guerrilla forces, and so on.
There's no war score, only a natural competition for targets and means to conquer/defend targets. All sides usually maintain communication channels which are used for small agreements such as temporary ceasefires or exchanges of POWs, which pave the way for deeper negotiations and eventual final peace deal. Third party countries often exert pressure on belligerents and may attempt to resolve situation with tools such as UN peacekeeping forces. Actors inside involved countries not only do not pause activities but sometimes even see conventional wars as an opportunity to climb the ladder - for instance via coup against government which poorly handles unpopular war.
Last but not least, every conventional war is a boon for military intelligence. From interrogations to captured equipment, all participants acquire vast knowledge about the enemy, actors, technology. At the same time, other agencies may infiltrate conflicts to acquire at least part of the treasure trove.
[h2]Alternate Approaches[/h2]
Rich history of military conflicts and their representation in games (also in the professional wargaming context) supplies many possible takes. The topic of military intelligence alone is vast and deserves many espionage-focused games. Espiocracy chose SOF angle - what were the other considered options?
Many of them were a source of precious inspirations and are featured in (very) limited form.
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
The next dev diary will progress from conventional to nuclear wars.
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:
---
"Weakness and irresolution unavoidably lead to war" - Odd Arne Westad
---
Espiocracy is not a wargame. Conventional conflicts follow the KISS principle and are reducible to one sentence: free-moving NATO counters fighting in simulated battles. Design focus, as always, is closer to the unconventional side of the world - Espiocracy is (partially) a special forces game!
Modern special operation forces (SOF) were forged in the fire of WW2, right before the start date of the game. In a true homage to SOE commandos, OSS paramilitary camps, CIA green berets, and many later units, you will be able to pull off famous special operations from WW2 and beyond - parachute deep behind enemy lines, blow up critical targets, pave the way for routes of invasion, or disable dangerous capabilities of the enemy - during conventional conflicts.
[h2]Military Forces[/h2]
The player controls special branch of local military forces. Other branches usually include land army, air force, and navy. Each of them is characterized by:
- Number of active duty soldiers
- Number of reserve soldiers, with ability to mobilize them in case of conflict
- Condition of an average soldier (includes training, small equipment, readiness, experience etc)
- Heavy equipment (tanks, helicopters, fighters, carriers etc)
- Quality of command, control, and logistics
- Level of corruption
Branches are funded from the state budget, changed by initiatives of significant actors (even to the point of favoring branches, eg. Eisenhower advocating for strong air force), and external context (such as technological paradigms or regional instability). In the event of war, branches are generally combined and fight under highest local denominator - brigade, division, corps, or army.
[h2]Before a War[/h2]
Every country maintains a set of war plans. Their existence and details follow national interests, webs of alliances, state of military, temporary opportunities, and sometimes even personal grudges of leading actors. At the very least, there are defensive war plans which contain largely standard data (such as C&C, bases and their protection, defense lines, useful retreat and counterattack paths) and their main value lies in protection/stealing. Offensive war plans, on the other hand, are highly prized materials, prepared both "just in case" and before real operation, which - when captured by the defending side - can decide about the fate of war.
One of the inspirations behind war plans in the gamePlayers take part in unconventional planning before real wars - on the level of special forces and nuclear targeting (next dev diary). Utilizing player agency slightly larger than real life, other branches generally follow opportunities established by the player. For instance, special forces breaching particular part of border will be followed by conventional forces, sabotage on particular direction will be assisted by air assaults, strategic reconnaissance and its results will guide movement of armies, and so on.
[h2]Course of a War[/h2]
After a war is declared or border skirmishes evolve into larger conflict, the war relies on two strategic halves. Belligerents compete for strategic targets on the ground: cities, airports, railway junctions, sea ports, and high value actors such a head of state. They are defended, conquered, denied (by encirclement, strategic bombing... or nukes), and then used to enable strategic movement which generally means offensives and counteroffensives (and lack of movement - holding the line), naturally leading to direct simulated battles.
Rapid offensives and counteroffensives of the Korean WarInspired by highly mobile warfare of Korean War, Operation Desert Storm, and Seven Days to the River Rhine, combined units swiftly cover larger swaths of terrain both when pursuing the enemy and when retreating. Actions are dependent on the state of military branches (which can significantly change during the conflict) and terrain details (to, i.a., approximate strategic role of the Fulda Gap).
After initial (planned) special operations are carried out, the player is able to react on the battlefield near both described halves. You can conduct raids on strategic targets, rescue protected strategic assets (from hostage situations to easing encirclement), harass movement via ambushes and sabotage, enable new opportunities, train local guerrilla forces, and so on.
There's no war score, only a natural competition for targets and means to conquer/defend targets. All sides usually maintain communication channels which are used for small agreements such as temporary ceasefires or exchanges of POWs, which pave the way for deeper negotiations and eventual final peace deal. Third party countries often exert pressure on belligerents and may attempt to resolve situation with tools such as UN peacekeeping forces. Actors inside involved countries not only do not pause activities but sometimes even see conventional wars as an opportunity to climb the ladder - for instance via coup against government which poorly handles unpopular war.
Last but not least, every conventional war is a boon for military intelligence. From interrogations to captured equipment, all participants acquire vast knowledge about the enemy, actors, technology. At the same time, other agencies may infiltrate conflicts to acquire at least part of the treasure trove.
[h2]Alternate Approaches[/h2]
Rich history of military conflicts and their representation in games (also in the professional wargaming context) supplies many possible takes. The topic of military intelligence alone is vast and deserves many espionage-focused games. Espiocracy chose SOF angle - what were the other considered options?
- False intelligence game, following the likes of WW2 deception (Operation Fortitude!)
- Donald Nichols simulator, a man who built his private empire of targets, bribes, and spies in every unit during the Korean War - it's impossible to summarize his biography in one paragraph, so here's a taste: when his enemies dispatched an assassin to kill him, he was informed about the plot by his vast network of sources, murdered the perp, and then buried the body near his office as a warning for future plotters
- Embedded military intelligence units, deciphering precise movements, incoming attacks, working out tactical and operational layer of a war, creating and resolving fog of war
- Psyops side of the war, heavy-handed war-time propaganda, encouraging surrenders and defection, motivating own soldiers
- War room with constantly incoming intelligence with various levels of uncertainty that is then used to make decisions on the battlefield
Many of them were a source of precious inspirations and are featured in (very) limited form.
[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]
The next dev diary will progress from conventional to nuclear wars.
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:
---
"Weakness and irresolution unavoidably lead to war" - Odd Arne Westad