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 a map game: the map is the primary interface, present almost always on your screen, and in development receives a lot of care. It's also unusual in comparison to other map games (primarily grand strategy games) because it is not limited by a specific engine, and instead it can be as bespoke as we want it to be.

In DD#35 we talked about the visual approach: prerendered 2.5D relief map which hosts countries defined by flexible point-by-point borders. Today we'll explore further data layers on the map that influence gameplay.


Instead of dividing the world into provinces, Espiocracy uses two levels of grid-based maps. Higher-precision grid (5100x2650, 1 point equals roughly 5.8km^2) defines borders and positions of discrete objects such as cities, officers, or battles. Lower-precision grid (510x265, 1 cell equals 58km^2) is used for areas and prevalence, which is a technical trade off between good enough precision and computation/memory/data collection. While at first glance this distinction may seem unnecessary, we are primarily worried about areas. Cell grid has area of 135k while point grid has area of 13.5 million - 100x more!

Naturally, the first and foremost use of (lower-precision) cells is terrain.

Terrain cells define local kind of land or sea, from standard (eg. forests or mountains) to more unusual kinds (eg. deep sea, farmland plains, usable coast). Some of them may be slightly modified - for instance, defoliating jungle through herbicide warfare (historically: Malayan Emergency and Vietnam War) or costly projects making coastline more/less usable (the latter for defensive purposes).

Conflicts rely on cells to define areas controlled or contested by belligerents. Their display, as you could see in many previous dev diaries, is rounded on the main map to make it more palatable visually:

Other entities in the game world that use cells to define area include deposits, postnuclear fallout, populations...

...and some of the strategic locations.


The map is enriched by:

• Strategic Gaps (eg. Fulda Gap in West Germany, also GIUK Gap)
  
• Gates (eg. Focsani Gate in Romania)
  
• Corridors (eg. Wakhan Corridor in Afghanistan)
  
• Major Mountain Passes (eg. Brenner Pass in the Alps)
  
• Natural Harbors, Straits, Canals

These strategic locations can be controlled by particular nations (not necessarily by the host nation), fortified (including nuclear minefields, as was the case in the Fulda Gap), contested, and become one of the strategic targets during conventional wars (DD#29). They are also an environment for espionage, especially military espionage, where getting spies on the ground may significantly assist eventual future push to conquer the location.


Islands, due to important role as intelligence outposts and military bases, are abundant in the game.

Such islands may have different size, supply lines ("remoteness"), and levels of autonomy in connection to the mainland. With high enough autonomy, they may enter the category of territories. These are not limited to islands, as they can include also enclaves and exclaves, such as Gibraltar. Note that the size of such tiny geographical features is kept fairly faithful (Gibraltar is just one point on 5100x2650 grid!) - but they are still selectable from the main map thanks to an algorithm that establishes larger hitboxes for mouse clicks.

Some territories were established through leases, for instance American base in Guantanamo Bay. New leases may be arranged during the gameplay. They may be limited in time, eg. British lease for Hong Kong will expire in the game in 1997. Leases can also cover canals.


Espiocracy features province-like regions for most important subnational areas in the world: states in the USA, republics in the USSR, countries of the United Kingdom, and potentially separatist areas such as Basque Country. Regions have defined autonomy, regularly decreased or increased, in the latter case even to the point of attempting a separatist political change (eg. a referendum).

In the case of the USA, states play significant role in the election. The United States begin the game with 48 states (and 48-star flag), with potential to christen Hawaii and Alaska as 49th and 50th state in 1950s.

Every country, naturally, has cities. The game currently focuses on major cities - with population exceeding 0.5M (it's a general guideline, broken for countries without such a city or when it's useful for gameplay to feature more cities in particular place).

Cities play important role in Espiocracy. They are the primary battleground for espionage - this is where stations are located, where spies are recruited, where propaganda is distributed, and money laundered. Therefore, players can expect detailed cities: various types, traits, parameters, populations, connections, special requirements, changes in time, and so on.

Current shape of cities, visible above, will be certainly further fleshed out in development before and after the release of the game. In a way, cities for Espiocracy could be compared to planets in space 4X games, with interesting corollaries that follow from this comparison.


Last but not least, let's look at two distinct espionage features on the geopolitical landscape of the game.

"Centers of gravity" were mentioned before (DD#52). To reiterate and expand, they represent deep connections between countries that transcend distance on the map: empires and their colonies, superpowers and their spheres of influence, long-term alliances, linguistic and cultural connections. The game starts with many of them in place but they are also subject to further changes during gameplay. Players can tap into these connections and, for instance, spy on Nigeria from London instead of flying to Lagos. A few examples below:

(Black and white circle is a universal symbol of center of gravity. In the game, large circle marks another country as a center for the selected country, while small circle under puppet control bar is displayed over countries for which selected country is a center. Note "a" instead of "the" - a country can have many centers and can be a center for many countries.)

In addition, intelligence structures on the map form now a real network where connections represent intelligence couriers, reliable routes, stable communication between stations and other nodes:

(Work in progress, we'll return to this in the future)


As with most parts of data & content in the game, geopolitical features are moddable and designed to be easily extended during development. Beyond what was already shown on screenshots above, backlog of future geopolitical features is so rich that it deserves sharing an excerpt. Further future features in works: railroad junctions, entertainment centers, tripoints, artificial islands, modern fortified lines, peninsulas controlling nearby waterways, air corridor to exclaves, oil and gas pipelines...


The next dev diary will be posted on the first Friday of the next month: May 2nd.

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:

[discord.gg]---
"OSS Map Division delivered some three thousand maps weighing more than seven hundred pounds" - Douglas Waller about American WW2 intelligence agency

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 to the second nuclear diary of Espiocracy. Once again, to quote the first installment from late 2022, we meet at a very strange time in world history.

DD#30 told the story of nuclear conflicts from a psychological perspective. Today, in DD#60, we'll look at more physical, down-to-earth aspects of the nuclear world in the game.

Quick recap of the key term from DD#30, central to everything nuclear in Espiocracy: escalation ladder defines possible nuclear positions for all countries in the game world.

The ladder has slightly evolved since 2022.

Every nation has a public and a real position on the ladder. Anything we do within the nuclear program or with nuclear forces can lead to changes in these positions, that is escalation or de-escalation, which can trigger fundamental reactions globally ("fundamental" meaning even up to the ignition of nuclear war!).

"Anything we do" is not a figure of speech - as the player (an intelligence community), you are fully in charge of your nation's nuclear interests. Let's dive straight into step one.


At the most basic level, any country in the game can invest in nuclear proofing: building blast shelters, fallout shelters, stockpiling strategic reserves, and securing government continuity. These structures can partially weather the effects of nuclear war. In some cases, other countries may interpret this buildup as a slight but meaningful escalation - a sign that we have plans known to us but hidden from other actors. This is particularly relevant for superpowers and their allies (historically, intense civil defense programs in the USA during the 1950s instilled fear in the Soviet Politburo, who suspected that the Americans might be preparing a first strike).

For actual nuclearization, its feasibility in non-nuclear nations is measured by atomic ambition:

Once it reaches 100, the local player can launch the nuclear program.

This parameter is primarily influenced by the State Power Index (DD#16) and can thus be mainly increased by improving the country's general position. Additionally, it can be directly influenced by (relatively slow) propaganda operations, either pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear - for instance, in a typical game campaign, both superpowers will conduct anti-proliferation campaigns to subvert the atomic ambitions of key opposing countries.

Atomic ambition, along with nuclear position and eventual nuclear programs, is also a diplomatic playfield. Countries with sufficiently high atomic ambition can engage in diplomatic cooperation or conflicts over nuclear proliferation. These enable international actions such as supporting or subverting ambitions, constructing nuclear plants, imposing nuclear sanctions, and even declaring a nuclear casus belli. On a wider scale, usually facilitated by the UN, governments worldwide may agree to international treaties banning atmospheric nuclear tests, prohibiting nuclear weapons in space, and curtailing proliferation (which then establishes the International Atomic Energy Agency as a global actor and reduces atomic ambition of all the remaining non-nuclear states).

The final stretch toward 100 can be achieved by convincing the government to declare interest in nuclear power. Such a decision, however, also increases the ambition of neighboring countries (eg. the nuclear race between Brazil and Argentina in the late 1970s), is perceived as significant escalation (intended essentially to hasten the launch of a nuclear program), can lead to diplomatic discord, and might even contribute to military conflict.


A nuclear program begins with a budget, initially assigned ad hoc (proportional to the entire government budget and to the month of fiscal year), and then using the same framework as other national expenditures.

The player fully controls this budget, allocating it to monthly progress and discrete actions: procuring uranium ore, exploiting uranium deposits, building nuclear power reactors, and establishing enrichment facilities.

Work in progress. Program management is highly contextual. For instance, nuclear power options are absent above since it's 1946. Note the icons in the Maginot Line which was partially repurposed by the French player for nuclear civil defense.

Progress within the nuclear program relies on science and technology pursued through various mechanics (DD#20: governmental contracts, scitech actors, reverse engineering, big science projects, technology transfer, scitech espionage). Five primary paradigms influence nuclear programs: nuclear fission, nuclear reactors, centrifuge enrichment, quantum mechanics, and digital computers - plus four paradigms specific to nuclear weapons: neutron initiators, high-explosive lenses, atomic bombs, and hydrogen bombs.

These paradigms enable relevant actions and define the efficiency of nuclear efforts. Additionally, there are optional/specialized scientific and technological paradigms within nuclear physics.

Once humanity achieves viable nuclear power plant technology (a paradigm shift), nuclear programs can be directed exclusively or additionally toward peaceful electrification. However, during the early Cold War or by explicit player choice, nuclear programs can aim for weaponization through the concert of scientific and technological progress, securing uranium (including special operations like Mossad's Plumbat), and enriching enough high-grade fissile material.


Developing the first nuclear bomb is non-trivial - especially during the early Cold War without extensive test knowledge, nuclear physics experience, and advanced computing - but the main historical obstacle is producing enough enriched fissile material, which may require years of costly facility operations. Once sufficient material is available (currently the game assumes 30 kg of highly enriched uranium), the first nuclear detonation of a test device can be prepared.

Preparation includes selecting a test site and ensuring its secrecy. This is straightforward for large countries (eg. China or Russia) or colonial empires (eg. French nuclear tests in Algeria), but can be more challenging for smaller nations. They may rely on international cooperation (eg. alleged Israeli test near South African territories, Vela incident) or build costly underground facilities (eg. late nuclear states such as North Korea).

No test remains perfectly clandestine. Even secluded tests within police states were detectable in the early Cold War by air sampling aircraft (as with Joe-1/RDS-1). Players can initiate nuclear detection programs (intelligence programs, DD#41) to acquire real and useful data on foreign tests.

After the first successful detonation (not guaranteed, as devices can fizzle), the nuclear program advances to the next phase: developing nuclear forces. Players can establish production lines for cyclically design improved nuclear device types (or use historical templates), balancing tactical and strategic trade-offs, fissile material usage, yield, weight, and delivery feasibility.

Early work in progress


Nuclear forces require not only warheads but also delivery methods:

• Bombers - default delivery method during the Cold War, medium or strategic range, superseded by missiles in late-game
  
• Missiles - medium-range/intercontinental, ballistic/cruise, stationary (silos)/transportable (TEL)/submarine-based, single warhead/MIRVed
  
• Stationary - doomsday devices (eg. cobalt bombs), atomic bomb ships (a surprisingly common fear of the early 1950s, Eastern bloc ships were inspected for atom bombs before docking to American ports), mines (eg. in the Fulda Gap).
  
• Tactical - rockets, artillery, depth charges, backpacks, briefcases

Much like bombs, these delivery methods rely on specific scitech paradigms, consume nuclear budget, and affect nuclear ladder positions. Paradoxically, intelligence assessments of their existence, quantity, and deployment are more challenging than with nuclear weapons themselves, leading to historical misjudgments like the bomber or missile gaps. We'll explore these topics in greater depth in future nuclear diaries.


The next dev diary will be posted on the first Friday of the next month: April 4th.

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:

[discord.gg]---
"In March 1950, an official from the Atomic Energy Commission — then the guardian of US nuclear secrets — oversaw the burning of thousands of copies of the magazine Scientific American. The contention? They contained information so secret that its publication could jeopardize the free world" - Alex Wellerstein