Espiocracy News

Espiocracy was announced to be published by Hooded Horse and a new trailer was shown in the Hooded Horse Publisher Showcase at PAX East 2022. The publisher showcase revealed new content and announcements across Hooded Horse’s strategy games.

[previewyoutube][/previewyoutube]

Espiocracy can be wishlisted below:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1670650/

The trailers for Espiocracy and the other games featured in the showcase can be found at the Hooded Horse Publisher Page on Steam:

https://store.steampowered.com/publisher/HoodedHorse

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.

---

Modern world has been forged in the fire of science and technology. Far from an anonymous historical process, all discoveries and inventions originated from a relentless march of scientists and engineers, people with their own ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. This is the point of view embraced by Espiocracy: humans & human minds. Instead of featuring just a set of technologies, we will be talking about paradigms.

A paradigm is a line of thought, set of beliefs, body of evidence supporting particular conclusion. In this context, it was popularized by Thomas Kuhn to describe perhaps the most significant change of thinking about our place in the world: the Copernican Revolution. 500 years ago, the geocentric paradigm (Earth as the center of the universe) was replaced by the heliocentric paradigm (Earth orbiting the Sun) in a somewhat fierce conflict between the old guard and the revolutionaries. History of science, Kuhn argued, is punctuated by multiple such shifts in thinking - about electricity, the origin of species, or the law of gravity*. Between these events, science proceeds in the ordinary staccato of experiments, publications, and slight corrections within the existing paradigm.

Transcript: Chart with usefulness on the y-axis and time on the x-axis. Paradigms progress from left to right as a sigmoid curve. The old paradigm at some point in time is met by a new paradigm that overlaps the old paradigm in the exponential part of the curve.

Espiocracy adopts modified version of Kuhn's paradigms to model STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) with two cycles: paradigm shifts and paradigm development. Here, paradigms are extended to practical inventions, usually less violent, and less grandiose than stopping the Sun and moving the Earth. The timeline is too short to expect many significant scientific revolutions, which means that most paradigm shifts work gently by weakening and strengthening other paradigms, shaping a unique STEM landscape in the simulated world. You, as an intelligence agency on the bleeding edge of STEM, participate by placing bets on the combination of paradigms and cycles via the plethora of espionage- and state-based tools.

[h2]Example Paradigms[/h2]

Currently, paradigms are divided into six sectors:

• Electronics - from vacuum tubes to AI
  
• Nuclear Physics - from atom bombs to generation IV reactors
  
• Rocketry - from V2s to SpaceX-like VTVLs
  
• Vehicles and Weapons - from jet airplanes to drones
  
• Medicine and Biology - from vaccines to CRISPR
  
• Basic Sciences - from information theory to exoplanets

The staple of the Cold War serves as a primary example of a paradigm:

Transcript: Widget with atom bombs represented as a paradigm in the game. The description follows in the next paragraph.

Nuclear bombs (atom bombs, fission weapons) produce energy from enriched uranium or plutonium. This is in contrast to thermonuclear bombs, which use isotopes of hydrogen to spark much larger explosions - a paradigm that will replace atom bombs in the future. At the start of the game in 1946, atom bombs are still in the exponential phase of development, where normal science attempts to industrialize production of these weapons. Relevant actors include American Atomic Energy Commission and a set of other organizations, currently unknown to the player. There are many requirements to start local development, out of which only one is met by player's Czechoslovakia (uranium mine in Jachymov).

Since paradigms are first and foremost about thinking (among professionals), they can get unusual in comparison to the classic set of technologies encountered in strategy games. Some of the shifts change the world by influencing popular behaviors - there are paradigms pertaining to the health effects of cigarettes and the development of seat belts in cars. Others are straight-up damaging and objectively incorrect, following the example of the geocentric paradigm. These include Nobel-winning lobotomy, Mao's campaign to eliminate sparrows, or Lysenkoism. Far from simple conspiracy theories (which are handled by the system of views), these paradigms have powerful actors vouching for them, wider recognition, and oftentimes are enforced by the state.

[h2]Paradigm Dynamics[/h2]

Paradigms are global, the same for the whole world, which reflects interconnected STEM communities of the modern world. It doesn't mean that everyone has an identical technology tree - far from it, since the global set of existing paradigms is only the source of choice for particular countries. (Think of random 'choose one out of three' slots seen in recent 4X strategy games, where randomness is instead largely controlled and can be strategically influenced.)

Existing paradigms are locally mastered by actors in a country. For some paradigms, it's just an autonomous process, where sufficiently strong actors are all you need. Others require funding, special access, materials, political decisions, or intelligence. There are also lavish paradigms that require state-funded Big Science projects.

"Mastering" a paradigm equals convincing people to a particular line of thought, implementing experiments, producing devices, rolling out measures in the population. The process doesn't stop after the paradigm is mastered! This is where Kuhn's normal science kicks in: the paradigm is further developed and optimized in subcycles (atomic bomb case: better yields, safer handling, faster production). There's always a new, better version waiting on the horizon.

Beyond the horizon of normal science, there are new paradigms. Their arrival depends on investments across the world. In the design documents, this system is referred to as a "STEM stock market", because betting on the next paradigm shift is not only a prediction (we'll be rich if we're putting money on the right horse!) but also a direct intervention (this horse will be richer because we're putting money on it!).

Eureka moment, a paradigm shift, happens to a particular actor semi-randomly, where luck favors the prepared. New paradigms initially remain in the pre-shift phase. The country of origin can try to conceal the invention and widen first-mover advantage. At the same time, other countries - their intelligence agencies! - hunt for paradigm shifts, with early acquisition of relevant materials being a boon to the local STEM community. It is usually a competition leading to temporary advantages (with rare exceptions), because shifts are not exclusive, and can be invented by other actors and countries.

When the new paradigm is advanced enough to be widely accepted, the point of paradigm shift arrives. Sometimes it takes a form of flashy event, the final straw of evidence to convince the world:

Transcript: Event window with title "Paradigm Shift: Thermonuclear Weapons" and the following description: "It's a boy," Edward Teller wired proudly after the first successful test of a thermonuclear weapon. The explosion produced a yield of 10 Mt, making it more powerful than all combined nuclear weapons in the world. The sheer destructive force vaporized Pacific island of Elugelab in an instant, leaving behind a 41 km high mushroom cloud. The news of the test came as a shock to the public. A mixture of fear and awe is palpable in the streets. No one knows what to expect next...

Naturally, the country of origin starts with the paradigm already mastered, ready for further progress in development subcycles. At the same time, other paradigms are over time influenced by the paradigm shift itself - they can be made obsolete (nuclear bombs - by thermonuclear bombs), weakened (Lysenkoism - by genetic code), strengthened (computers - by information theory), or enabled as a possible new paradigm (microprocessors - by MOSFET). In addition, some paradigm shifts will be met not only with reactions of relevant actors but also wider world, even to the point of sparking new movements ("ban the bomb!").

[h2]Interacting with Science & Technology[/h2]

The combination of global paradigms, local developments, and actors creates an intricate decision space.

Starting on the lower level, we can:

• Strengthen STEM actors at home
  
• Weaken foreign competitors ("weaken" in this game equals, i.a., sabotaging a nuclear plant)
  
• Acquire STEM intelligence
  
• Move actors, vide Operation Paperclip
  
• Smuggle in materials, sometimes despite embargoes
  
• Combat detrimental paradigms
  
• Promote, exploit, defend selected paradigms

On the higher level, through cooperation with the leader of the country, we can nudge local STEM into chosen direction via fairly realistic:

• Incentives
  
• Contracts
  
• DARPA-like institutions
  
• Big science projects
  
• International cooperations

Grand strategic, big picture approach to science & technology in Espiocracy suggests at least a few possible strategies:

• Investing in fast development of an existing paradigm and putting it to use while temporary advantage lasts
  
• Pushing for paradigm shift to make an existing - mastered by others - paradigm obsolete
  
• Specializing in a set of actors and paradigms (e.g. Japan & microprocessors in the 80s)
  
• Promoting detrimental paradigms and views in other countries
  
• Shaping different world to ride the wave of ripple effects (what if the internet arrived earlier or green revolution happened later?)

[h2]Final remarks[/h2]

As always, mechanics and screenshots are work in progress, subject to change, and may even receive a new dev diary down the line.

Don't hesitate to chime in with feedback, there is a lot that Espiocracy can get wrong on science & technology!

In the next dev diary, we will continue the topic by exploring a fascinating product of the Cold War: the space race.

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:



---
* Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" didn't really convince epistemologists at large and remains controversial in metascientific circles. As one of the reviewers noted, "paradigm is a word you seem to have fallen in love with!", and as another reviewer observed, Kuhn used the word "paradigm" in 21 distinct ways. There are many legitimate objections to his treatise, many of which I agree with. Among them, the narrow focus on dogmas in scientific communities seems like the largest culprit, which is somewhat corrected here (STEM actors in Espiocracy are generally not dogmatic). Thankfully, I have not only the freedom of iterating on Kuhn's paradigms but also of inventing an entire virtual world in which they are accurate enough!

---
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" - Max Planck

In spirit of April Fools' Day, this dev diary will be on much lighter side. Don't worry, it's not a hoax or a joke - instead, we will take a look at two quite silly prototypes from the early days of development. No in-depth analysis, just many odd tidbits, enjoy the ride!

[h2]Espiocracy as a... 4X[/h2]



It was bold, blue, and wrong. Some versions of the map were overwhelmingly atrocious...



...and other just overwhelming:



The prototype drank a lot of 4X Kool-Aid and tested literal exploration - with solar systems replaced by organizations - which actually turned out to be somewhat fun.



The analogy was taken to the limits, working even on the internal level of organizations, providing network gore in place of border gore:



At the same time, this prototype tested some deeper mechanics around procedurally generated characters via shameless bags of statistics:



Hiring window appealed to fans of sliders:



And the hiring was accomplished by winning in a full-fledged negotiation minigame!



By full I mean: opposite character had simulated state of mind and body language, they could get angry (depending on character's personality), and AI juggled actual negotiation strategies (distribution, integration, compromise, bluff, double bluff, accommodation).

[h2]Espiocracy as a... mobile manager[/h2]



Mobile approach was really a random decision (I can't recall now, probably just curiosity about development process for Android). As a one of the first prototypes, it was also a test of Godot game engine and its scripting language (later ditched for C#), written in two weeks of complete freestyle. What this means is that the code was absolutely disgusting!



Gameplay paid homage to good old strategies from the 90s by providing scenarios instead of campaigns or start dates.



Core loop revolved around weirdly quantified cooperation with the government:



The prototype tested detailed approach to espionage - 54 methods of tradecraft which you couldn't directly use (yay!).



Instead of direct choice, AI operatives were crafting plans, presented later to the player. Needless to say, they usually came up with stupid ideas.



Ultimately, gameplay leaned into survival genre. You were either wiped out in nuclear war, suffered from wave of terrorist attacks, or failed at tasks requested by the government.



The game tested time-based tension in a few places, including game over condition:



Final farewell was rather dense & nerdy:



And this is also where our journey through prototypes ends!

---

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.

---

Why are people willing to die for an idea? What makes the idea of a "nation" so powerful? How do nations form?

Espiocracy embarks on a journey to answer these big questions. Starting on January 1, 1946, the game launches you into a world recovering from the Second World War and into the long shadow this war cast on the concept of statehood.

Countries once described as empires, proud conquerors of the world, were themselves conquered or economically crippled. Even after victorious war-time counteroffensives, they were no longer in a position to retain their power over colonies. Some nations even owed part of their hard-won liberty to conscripted colonial subjects, who, for their part, had seen first-hand that Europeans were not as civilized as they had been led to believe.

At the same time, two anti-colonialist powerhouses were emerging from the ashes of WWII. United States and Soviet Union, eager to make a case for their opposing ideologies, armed freedom fighters and promised economic miracles to potential new countries.

And so, the era of decolonization begins - Petri dish of nation forming.

Transcript: 19XX year of independence for majority of decolonized countries in the real world history.

The Cold War precipitated decolonization of dozens of countries. In the game, decolonization powers multiple ways in which events could have come to pass, mixing diverse interactions to create different alternate history every time you play.

[h2]Anatomy of a colony[/h2]

In Espiocracy, colonization shares features with occupation. Colonies and occupation zones fall into the wider category of proto-states: separate ecosystems of actors (influential people, organizations, and sectors) controlled and exploited by another country through a set of external actors (colonial administration, military forces). Subtypes and power of the latter define details of proto-state's dependence, ranging from indirect rule through indigenous leaders (the British model) to de jure incorporation (e.g., French Algeria).

Colonies are populated by groups divided along ethnic, linguistic, and religious lines; for instance a white minority and indigenous majority, Tutsi and Hutu, or major ethnic groups of Indonesia. In this model, there is no inherent anti-colonial conflict (besides the usual anti-settler tensions). Instead, there are conflicts (and cooperation) between groups and actors that can be exacerbated by a colonial/anti-colonial divide but that also extend to tensions around settlement, economic exploitation, indigenous clashes, secession from colonial rule, and many more.

Populations and actors are mutable. They are modified by the wheel of history: migration, urbanization, green revolution in agriculture, new forms of media, lack of environmental resources, and supranational institutions.

This is where establishment dynamics kick in. Seeds of national identity reside in population groups, whereas physical countries are formed by concrete actors, such as political leaders and social movements. Delicate dance between these forces differentiates one colony’s fate from another’s. Two extreme examples of this phenomenon can be seen in trajectories taken by two neighboring countries: Guinea (whose anti-French movement under Ahmed Sékou Touré led to dramatic departure of colonists who literally unscrewed lightbulbs when leaving) and Senegal (where pro-French rule under Leopold Senghor saw Senegalese troops sent to crack down on rebellion in another French colony).

[h2]Playing in a colony[/h2]

Espiocracy leverages its unique approach to the grand strategy genre - playing below the level of nation spirit - in decolonization gameplay. Here, you can start as a part of potentially-nation-forming organization in a colonial proto-state and work from the shadows towards independence.

This part of gameplay is vastly different from the usual international spy intrigue. Instead of heading governmental intelligence agency with numerous employees, you guide a small group of fixers without diplomatic immunity or ability to form robust surveillance groups. This is where the system of contacts can shine. A few properly developed contacts can provide substantial support and result in deals that can mean the difference between successful decolonization and failure of your movement.

In addition to contacts, other ways to play direct role in decolonization include:

• Undermining colonial government
  
• Organizing popular resistance
  
• Cooperating with other independence movements
  
• Harnessing external support
  
• Infiltrating state actors
  
• Protecting actors (think: Gandhi)
  
• Promoting pan-continental ideas

Essentially, this element of gameplay is a twist on the diagram presented in the first dev diary, moving the center of gravity towards characters:
Transcript: On a spectrum from playing as a nation to playing as a character, middle position of an intelligence agency moves towards characters in the decolonization phase.
It is partially inspired by real-world examples, such as highly active intelligence components of Vietnamese independence organizations or members of Polish anti-communist opposition forming counterintelligence cells.

[h2]Playing in an empire[/h2]

Colonial empires, famously, have taken very different paths in the decolonization process, often on a case-by-case basis. In-game differences between these trajectories depend on economics, use as a political and military outpost in the region, government’s views on colonialism, views on goals and race (e.g., difference between British racism and France’s “civilizing mission”), ability to project the power, schemes such as a second colonial occupation, and direct relationships between actors in the homeland and those in dependent territories. In gameplay, these factors are complemented by external factors such as events (such as Suez crisis accelerating decolonization) or international pressure (like the formation of the UN, signing of the Geneva Accords, and emergence of global superpowers).

As a player, you are asked for advice and can proactively recommend action on a spectrum ranging from all-out military intervention (e.g., the Dutch in Indonesia) to fleeing the scene (e.g., the British in Palestine), all of which have far-reaching consequences. Repression is handled by military and separate secret police, but you can also choose to directly engage in the process as an imperial state actor following, for instance, the Portuguese approach in Mozambique, where PIDE allegedly assassinated Eduardo Mondlane, leader of local independence movement.

In some territories, you can nurture close cooperation with the white minority, which may be profitable not only for the country but also for your organization. Colonies can also influence homelands via actors (e.g., Jacques Soustelle, the French Governor-General of Algeria who planned a coup to overthrow government in Paris) and population (primarily through migration).

Moreover, decolonization gameplay includes the option to interfere in other colonies. The Cold War was very much a conflict between proxies of proxies with France supporting anti-colonial movements in British dominions, the US backing apartheid anti-communist governments, Cuba exporting revolution to Angola, and alleged conflict between Soviet and Chinese intelligence services spilling over into Africa.

[h2]Independence[/h2]

There's more than one way to skin a cat:

• Unilateral declaration of independence
  
• Autonomy granted by the empire
  
• Diplomatic negotiations and subsequent transfer of rule
  
• Victory of local actors in a civil war
  
• Violent overthrow of the colonial administration
  
• Flight of the colonial administration followed by a brief stateless period
  
• Referendum (fair or... rigged)
  
• Policy (e.g., British majority rule, French union)
  
• Legal pressure within the empire (e.g., Félix Houphouët-Boigny)
  
• Secession of the colonial administration (e.g., Rhodesia)

Borders of newly-formed country are defined by actors in power: practical control (loyal boots on the ground), location of populations, neighboring countries, and natural barriers. In some cases, decolonized countries at first have fluid borders which remain an issue to be resolved through diplomatic means. This very important topic will likely get a separate dev diary in the future.

After independence, the fate of the new country is decided by international recognition, access to the UN, and the establishment of state structures. Often, new countries are overflowing with competing factions, such as population groups that value local patriotism over loyalty to the whole country. They must also deal with neighbors who try to exploit their vulnerabilities and often undeveloped economy. In some cases, civil war is inevitable. Gameplay at this stage transforms from a local faction-related affair to international gameplay involving the acquisition of much-needed technology, knowledge, and alliances, all of which must be achieved while avoiding neo-colonization.

[h2]Final remarks[/h2]

With this dev diary, we finished initial sequence of articles focused on nations in Espiocracy. Next up - science and technology!

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:



---
"At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom" - Jawaharlal Nehru, 1947

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:

• 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