Espiocracy News

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.

---

Hi Folks,

We continue our "Once Upon a Time..." ("Il était une fois...") journey through the anatomy of countries in Espiocracy. After exploring political changes, today we will look into unashamedly glorified spreadsheet: State Power Index (SPI)*.

To start with proper Zeitgeist, let's begin by peering behind the scenes of strategy game design.

Transcript: Score screens of Master of Orion 2, Civilization 6, and Stellaris.

Most popular 4X games score players based on:

• eliminating other players, growing population, achieving fast success (Master of Orion 2)
  
• building cities and other assets, researching technologies (Civilization 6)
  
• colonized and conquered solar systems, relative monthly income (Stellaris)
  

One of the earliest prototypes tested the idea of implementing Espiocracy as a 4X game - espionage-themed exploration, expansion, exploration, and extermination. Although it didn't work (that) well, it suggested a few interesting features. This is where SPI was born. Originally, it followed victory points and victory conditions, but quickly evolved from arbitrary points into the direction of simulation.

Transcript: Ledger screens of Europa Universalis 4 and Crusader Kings 2.

EU4 and CK2 sport different kind of scoring system. It takes a back seat but is also more complex, attempting to create composite score of sectors (administrative, diplomatic, military, and so on) and/or resources (prestige, piety). Usually far from gameplay, it serves as a helper, which is perhaps best visualized by famous ledgers.

Transcript: Ranking screens of Victoria Revolutions and Victoria 2.

Victoria series iterated by producing global ranking of countries. This time, it's tied to a prestige parameter, merging two of the best worlds: accessibility and depth. Moreover, it's a positive feedback loop - higher ranked nations have more agency, which places prestige among one of the strongest motivators for players, always keen to expand their decision toolbox.

With this analysis in mind, we can move to the scoring system of Espiocracy. Here, we take one step further towards simulation and integration with gameplay.

[h2]Simulation[/h2]

State Power Index compares all nations in the world purely based on real indicators, such as GDP or number of modern tanks. SPI is built from weighted comparisons between ~50 indicators in ~4 layers, giving comprehensive yet approachable summary of global position in the form of a single number from 0 to 100.

SPI is inspired by modern economic indicators. Instead of naive ranking (first, second, third...), it uses distance to frontier calculation.

Transcript: The worst performing country is assigned to number 0, the best performing country to number 100, and all countries in-between are proportionally normalized to 0-100 value.

This calculation is performed separately for every indicator, which are then averaged by subsectors, sectors, and build composite SPI for the whole country.

SPI has a few desirable effects on the gameplay. It is pretty immune to two worst offenders near scoring systems: failure trap and snowballing. The best performing country can always improve - even if their score remains at 100, boosting the indicator pushes competition farther away. On the opposite end of spectrum, globally worst countries can catch up with the rest and influence other rankings by, for instance, changing particular indicator from nice-to-have to must-have over decades.

[h2]Depth[/h2]

These are current sectors, subsectors, and indicators of State Power Index.

(Sector) Economy (25% weight)

• (Subsector) Size: (Indicator) GDP
  
• International Leverage: Companies, Reserves
  
• Technology: R&D Spending, Nobel Prizes, Top-Tech Non-Military Projects
  
• Connectivity: Exports, Imports, Investors
  
• Economic Diplomacy: Treaties
  

Military (25%)

• Defense: Spending
  
• Armed forces: Personnel, Readiness, Experience, Command and Control
  
• Weapons: Tanks, Infantry Vehicles, Ships, Submarines, Airplanes, Top-Tech Military Projects
  
• Signature Capabilities: Missiles, Long-Range Projection Ships, Area Denial etc
  
• Intelligence Capabilities: Know-how, International Reach, Personnel, Top-Tech Intelligence Projects
  
• Military Posture: Deployed Forces
  
• Nuclear Deterrence: Bombs, Range, Ground-Based Launchers, Second-Strike Submarine Launchers
  

Diplomatic Networks (15%)

• Regional Allies: Number times strength
  
• Diplomatic network: Embassies, Consulates
  
• Global partnerships: NATO or Warsaw Pact or Non-Aligned Countries or others times strength
  

Resilience (15%)

• Internal Stability: Risk of Coup, Risk of Civil War, Risk of Terrorist Attacks
  
• Resource Security: Access to Coal, Oil etc
  
• Geopolitical security: Risk of Military Invasion
  

Cultural Influence (15%)

• Cultural projection: Global Cultural Actors
  
• Migration: Diasporas
  

Future (5%)

• Economic: GDP Trend
  
• Defense: Military Spending Trend
  
• Resilience: Stability Trend, Security Trend
  
• Demography: Working-Age Population Trend
  

Needless to say, it will change during playtests, balancing, and - most importantly! - during the gameplay itself, where new indicators will attempt to capture some of the historical changes.

[h2]Integration[/h2]

State Power Index, naturally, defines superpowers and regional powers in the game, suggests alliances and rivalries, gives a set of clear goals for many AI agents in the world. However, the most important feedback loop extends directly to the player: SPI partially defines budget available to player's intelligence community (set of intelligence services, eg. MI5, MI6, and GCHQ in the UK). It gives clear motivation to improve position of own country - and clear consequences of losing international race.

Since this is a tight motivation loop, it also defines decision scope for the game in general. Every indicator can be influenced by the player, for instance GDP improved by industrial espionage, access to resources secured in covert operations, global cultural actors supported from the shadows - and the other side of the coin, lowering position of competing countries by ruining their indicators.

[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]

We will probably return to the topic of SPI (with screenshots!) in a future dev diary about in-game economy.

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:



---
* - "State power" as in international relations, used in this context for instance in "Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World" (2013)
Photo Credit: D Sharon Pruitt

---
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life" - Picard

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.

---

Welcome back!

Usually, we finish dev diaries with a quote. Today, we will begin with a striking paragraph from Britannica:

"Great empires disintegrated; nation-states emerged, flourished briefly, and then vanished; world wars twice transformed the international system; new ideologies swept the world and shook established groups from power; all but a few countries experienced at least one revolution and many countries two or more; domestic politics in every system were contorted by social strife and economic crisis; and everywhere the nature of political life was changed by novel forms of political activity, new means of mass communication, the enlargement of popular participation in politics, the rise of new political issues, the extension of the scope of governmental activity, the threat of nuclear war, and innumerable other social, economic, and technical developments" Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Development-and-change-in-political-systems

This abominably long sentence perfectly captures the gist of political change in Espiocracy. Countries and governments are simulated with the emphasis on change rather than static stability. Constant political panta rhei sits at the heart of the game - it combines points of divergence in the Cold War, grandness in the grand strategy genre, and the activity of intelligence agencies. In fact, for some (larger) countries this is the core gameplay, the main way to win.

[h2]States of states[/h2]

Political changes are modeled with Markov chains. Use of this tool in political modelling goes back as far as the 70s:

Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600315

More recent works use them even to model the future:

Source: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Logistic-Regression-and-Markov-Chain-Model-for-of-Shallcross/

And this is the current shape of political Markov chain in Espiocracy:



Hopefully, "show, don't tell" explains the model on its own. If you need a few nerdy details:

• Circles and connections represent, respectively, all possible states and transitions
  
• Transitions have assigned accumulation factors spiced with RNG and integrated with other systems such as actors (in standard Markov chains this is just probability)
  
• All factors of transitions coming out of a single state must sum up to 100%
  
• The state is memoryless - previous states theoretically don't matter
  
• In practice though, factors are shaped by other systems which do react to a sequence of states
  
• Steps are discrete, but will be seamlessly integrated with the in-game flow of time
  
• Some (factors of) transitions are controlled by schedulers, for instance elections
  

[h2]Struggle for power[/h2]

Fundamentally, political fate of countries and governments is controlled by possible political changes. Players compete to affect them via direct activities (e.g. plotting a coup) or indirect means (e.g. funneling money to social movement). The latter also extends to population, actors, and larger external circumstances. This is where a crisis can lead to government resignation, death of a fierce dictator can open up the pathway to liberalization, or where a nuclear bomb collapses a country into anarchy.

There's one more critical factor which governs possible changes: axis from democracy to autocracy.



In a simple yet meaningful approximation of very complex phenomenon, the game attempts to capture multi-decade trajectories of political systems. Every political change - and some events - has capability to slightly move country's position on the axis. On the one hand, it means that strong democracy (usually) cannot change to dictatorship overnight, and instead needs years of undermining (active measures vibes!). On the other hand, it conveys the fact that you (usually) cannot just slap democratic structures on a country and call it a day (Afghanistan vibes) or follows the history of some post-autocratic countries which, after brief democratic period, returned to various shades of dictatorship.

Mind you, democratic-autocratic axis is political supradomain, further fleshed out to many subtypes, from crowned parliamentary democracies to dynastic communist autocracies.

[h2]Regnum Defende (defend the realm, motto of MI5)[/h2]

Interaction with political changes will greatly differ between the countries. There are:

• Possible specializations in capabilities, types of contacts, and operations
  
• Strategic materials which, when revealed, can topple whole governments
  
• Legal constraints, such as anti-assassination policy in the USA after JFK death
  
• Inter-agency agreements, for instance CIA and KGB did not directly interfere in internal politics of the opposite superpower
  
• Number of allies to strengthen and enemies to weaken
  
• Costs of actions, operations, infrastructure
  

The last point effectively limits interference capabilities for most countries in the world. Czechoslovakia (generally) won't be able to affect political changes in the USA, but may interfere in politics of neighbors if it dedicates enough resources. That doesn't mean lack of agency though - instead, minor countries usually focus on rare but still significant internal political changes. The design here reflects strategic approach to espionage (counterintelligence), in which frustrating blows out of the blue are replaced with consciously fought battles.

Importantly, the game doesn't choose optimal political changes for you. Quite the opposite, it introduces economic (and by extension, moral) ambiguities, which follow historical examples from many corners of the world - intelligence agencies fiercely fighting to strengthen weak government (e.g. Israeli Mossad), siding with external actors who take over the country but will increase their influence (e.g. Czechoslovak StB), supporting autocratic capitalist over democratic communist (e.g. CIA in Congo), and so on.

[h2]Example simulation[/h2]

After starting with a quote, let's finish with an old prototype simulation. Below, every country walks political Markov chain in one-year steps, with colors (confusingly, sorry for that!) corresponding to democracies (blue) / autocracies (red), and pins signalling transitions:



[h2]Final remarks[/h2]

The next dev diary will explore one of the crucial historical processes of Espiocracy which intersects with the framework of political changes: decolonization.

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:



---
Photo credit: Santeri Viinamäki

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:

• 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

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.

---

Today's dev diary happens to be scheduled exactly for Christmas Eve. It's a good occasion to try something more casual, less about the nitty-gritty and more about simple gameplay. Welcome to the first micro-AAR (after action report) of Espiocracy!

We play as Czechoslovak StB, starting on January 1st 1946.



Our situation is pretty dynamic. We are a weak democratic state with the danger of a communist takeover looming over the nation. Can we turn the tide of history and defend our democracy?

Soviet military forces liberated our country and departed just a moment ago, but they left heavily infiltrated security apparatus. Law enforcement, secret police, and even our intelligence agency are dominated by pro-communist members. This is further deepened by the presence of Soviet advisers among our top operatives and too-intimate contacts with KSČ - the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia - and MGB (predecessor of Soviet KGB). We cannot even launch anti-communist operations. It won't be easy...

Let's begin by consolidating power. We expand in the homeland by establishing numerous safehouses, a large network of informants, and a few courier rings. These will be useful immediately - supporting regular espionage - and in the future - when we launch the final blow.

We quickly run out of scarce postwar resources. Now, we can kill two birds with one stone and turn to our friends: propose a deal to MGB where in exchange for resources we will provide them benign tactical intelligence about Czechoslovakia. It can backfire in the future - they will use this knowledge against us - but at the moment it will provide much-needed resources, increase their trust, and lessen their need for physical presence in the country. Soviets are paying us to lull them into a false sense of security!

After a few months, Czechoslovakia held parliamentary elections. Unsurprisingly, KSČ has won - pro-communist views are popular, originating from the role of communist organizations in anti-Nazi resistance. The election was fair but it hands Czechoslovakia to the Soviets on a plate. The risk of coup d'état crossed 70%. Pro-communist actors - led by the secret police - are becoming bolder.

Offensive operations against these actors are currently not possible. However, we approach the problem from the other side and provide a secret stream of support to anti-communist actors via seemingly innocent contacts. This earns us their trust and loyalty while keeping them afloat for the time being. But it's just passive defense, we need even more ingenious approaches.

What about external cooperation? Surely, Americans will be interested in preserving democracy in Czechoslovakia. Let's venture out for a clandestine mission to establish contact with CIG (predecessor of CIA), using an anti-communist operative and extreme secrecy. This special operation should have a special name: we choose one of the Czech classic literary works, Kafka's "Metamorphosis".



Thanks to the common border with West Germany, it went smoothly. Initial trust is low - Americans are afraid of StB's provocation. To assure them about our intentions, we supply tactical intelligence on pro-communist actors. This is better but not good enough. They are still wary of closer cooperation. What could convince them?

We ask one of our trusted actors near the military to perform an operation on our behalf: steal strategic material about Soviet armed forces. In white gloves, we acquire materials on Soviet order of battle, which are then quickly passed to the CIG, finally bringing Americans to the table.

What do they want? Anti-communist government. Wait, KSČ is the legitimately chosen ruling party. Are they asking us to overthrow our government? Not exactly, but it might end in either their coup or our coup... What do we want? Everything! Money, operatives, tactical intelligence, cooperation on the ground. After a few rounds of negotiations, the deal is struck: rich cooperation in exchange for establishing democracy.

When resources start to flood the agency - obviously obfuscated so that the advisers remain in the dark - we use them to hire non-pro-communist staff. The small population of Czechoslovakia, ravaged by the war, is a significant limiting factor and we have to accept many underqualified candidates. This means that sophisticated operations will be out of the question for some time - instead, we'll turn to simpler operations. Sabotage & arrests, that's our goal.

After reaching proper numbers, Soviet policies limiting StB shifts from legal & strictly enforced to legal & rarely enforced. This means that in combination with extreme secrecy, we can finally target pro-communist actors. We start multiple operations of this kind, but all are set up only for preparation - after preparation is finished, we will have the ability to launch them all in a single day. Moreover, on the same day, we pass the strategic material on coup prepared by KSČ (acquired by CIG) to the non-communist minority in the government, which in cooperation with our top operatives rigs the parliament, outlaws communist parties and throws their members out of government. Last but not least, we dedicate a small but loyal force - cooperating on the ground with CIG operatives - to purge Soviet and pro-communist operatives out of StB. Banhammer.



We lost some of the precious experienced operatives but we gained real independence. Is it preemptive coup d'état? Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster...

Soviets are in shock while the West swoops in with large material help for the current government. The fight has just begun. We are surrounded by communist East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and obviously the Soviet Union. After regrouping, they will surely attack us with the full espionage arsenal. We can already see the immediate danger: Slovak separatists who, with proper Eastern support, will not only break away half of our country but also form a communist echelon with personal connections to our land...

---

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.

---

Clandestine operations, from the Bay of Pigs invasion (codename Zapata) to the Tajbeg Palace assault (codename Storm-333), can single-handedly change history of the world. Translated to games, they are OP and require nerfing... or do they?

Espiocracy will attempt to preserve gravitas of intelligence operations. On the one hand, operations are fleshed out into 34 types, numerous tactical approaches, and many possible adjustments. On the other hand, the design consciously addresses two issues present in similar systems - lack of interaction between players and the overwhelming role of randomness.

[h2]Conflict[/h2]

Operations, here, are modeled almost like battles. It is always a conflict between attacking and defending side, usually with players on both ends, which is reflected by the user interface:



In this scenario, the player attacks as Israeli Mossad. They want to sabotage Egyptian military forces, which are protected by General Intelligence Directorate (GIS). To achieve the task, the player can engage top operatives, choose tactical approaches, spend resources, employ contacts, or even invite allied intelligence agencies. These forces are met with actor’s security measures and GIS' activities - some of them might be hidden due to low tactical intelligence.

Initially, the defense is limited to passive preparation. However, at any point, the attacked player can become aware of the operation and deploy additional measures. This discovery mechanism depends on the dance of tactical intelligence levels and the nature of actual operation.



For high-stakes operations, players usually become aware of the operation before it is executed in full. Such a discovery does not imply perfect information - for instance, defending player may know attacking forces and operation type, but remain in the dark about the targeted actor. Players adjust their approaches in cycles, potentially evolving into back and forth duel, and ending up with scenarios such as forcing the opposite player to back off or spiraling into too costly conflict.

Ultimately, outcomes hinge on interactions between players.

[h2]Control[/h2]

Intelligence operations known from strategy games usually have binary outcomes - either success or failure. Espiocracy iterates on that by introducing five different outcomes for every operation, from very negative to very positive, which in practice means that assassination mission can conclude with injury instead of murder. This complexity is reduced to a value from 0 to 10 (higher = better), which determines the probability distribution of 2-3 outcomes out of 5 possible. At first, it might sound intimidating:



In practice, it quickly becomes intuitive:



In addition to many shades of outcomes, there are multiple points of failure - covered by the percentage risk parameter. A common example of a risk point is border crossing. The associated danger depends on the policy towards specific nationalities and the efficiency of border control. Player can lower it by infiltrating border control, developing document forgery capabilities, using illegal operatives, or even replacing it with another risk point such as crossing the green border.

Failure at a risk point is not (always) synonymous with aborted operations. Consequences are decided by the attacked player. They can do anything within the local law, from simply aborting the operation to preparing an ambush. Again, the game takes a step back from the concept of perfect information and introduces some limited uncertainty even about the failure.

[h2]Examples[/h2]

Let's explore three types of operations.

Propaganda operation increases or decreases support for selected views in the targeted population. It requires high tactical intelligence about the country (to speak the local cultural language) and can highly benefit from well-developed contacts with media. Type-specific tactical approaches include, among others, the use of forgeries. The targeted country defends itself by protecting media, detecting forgeries, or even enforcing censorship. Among risks, strong attribution of the operation - by operative's mistake or ingenious investigative reporter - can hand counterpropaganda gun to the defending side. Prospective outcomes range from the completely ignored campaign (very negative), through mildly affected support (moderate), up to a success larger than targeted (very positive).

Assassination is a typical high-risk/high-gain operation. Person of interest has to be targeted long in advance. On par with gathered intelligence, the choice of an assassin is critical. There are many possible options: domestic commando unit, trained top operative, direct action squad, external recruitment, or even remote killing. Likewise, tactics include anything from a white gun attack to the use of poison. This kind of operation is met with multiple defensive layers, such as surveillance, strong law enforcement organizations, VIP protection, package screening, or... actor's paranoia. The list of risks includes smuggling the gun, approaching the actor, gun malfunction, exfiltration afterward. The operation itself is costly in terms of resources and required time. The achieved result ranges from no harm done (very negative) to a perfect murder (very positive). Furthermore, this kind of operation can deeply impact operatives on a personal level, who risk their physical and psychological health.

Installing an operative does not immediately change the world but opens up new avenues. Its outcome depends primarily on the match between a top operative and the target - terrorist organization and research laboratory require different spies. Tactical approaches range from starting as a new inexperienced member to risky impostor-expert. Defending side can respond with, for instance, counterintelligence protection of the organization or stringent immigration laws. The risk is an aggregate of multiple possible slip-ups, with the frequency determined by the clash of offensive and defensive measures. Outcomes include outright rejection (negative) and shallow membership (moderate). The result of this operation brings a multitude of benefits, from a precise source of tactical intelligence, through the ability to use the undercover operative in other operations (for instance, in assassination of organization's close contact), or even influencing actions of the organization. Needless to say, an extremely risky but also extremely worthwhile variant of this operation can be executed against other intelligence agencies, with the potential to raise in ranks over years even to the position of top operative, who is used by the oblivious opposite player...

[h2]Final Remarks[/h2]

Although the design is fairly mature, some features will evolve during the playtesting period - such as the mechanism of operation discovery, economy of operations, precise distribution of probabilities, and so on. Also, some parts of the system were not (sufficiently) described and will be explored in further dev diaries.

The next dev diary (thirteenth!) will arrive exactly for Christmas Eve. That's a good occasion to prepare something unusual. I will leave you with three letters: AAR.

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:


---
"There are several people in this world whom I could kill with my own hands with a feeling of pleasure and without that action in any way spoiling my appetite, but I think that it is the type of bright idea which in the end produces a good deal of trouble and does little good" - Stewart Menzies, wartime chief of MI6