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.
(Disclaimer: Naturally, the topic, and therefore this diary, is controversial. Do note that it's all about a game, not the real world. Interpret every sentence as if it ended with "in the game". Minor second disclaimer: Since this is a game and not a historical treatise, events that happened "arguably" and "allegedly" are good enough to inspire a part of game world.)
There are more than 250 academic definitions of terrorism (according to Wikipedia). Espiocracy, rather than inventing the 251st or choosing one in particular, tries to capture this variety and uncertainty in its quest to fit the complexities of real world onto your screen.
The boundary between "savage terrorists and freedom fighters" fluctuates, nations and intelligence agencies become both state sponsors of terrorism and counterterrorist combatants, and terrorist methods significantly evolve over time. After decades of such evolution, terrorists in the game world usually converge on highly organized, suicidal, serial campaigns that pose...
(Chart by Phoenix7777)
...the late-game challenge, to which players can respond by launching the war on terror - and gain a second (post-Cold-War) life for their intelligence agencies.
However, far from being limited to the 21st century, terrorism is present and relevant for the entire period of the gameplay. Even the first year in Espiocracy, 1946, has historically seen a series of bombings - as Irgun bombed British targets in Rome and Jerusalem - that usually happen also in the game. In fact, terrorists start to plot their attacks even before the player unpauses for the first time. Why do they begin their plots? What makes one pursue terrorism? How does terrorism arise in the game?
Motivation
Actors pursue - or create other entities to pursue - terrorist methods in association with severe religious conflicts, some ideological conflicts, and/or extreme views. These are enablers of terrorism, which on their own do not lead to terrorism. The final motivational spark comes from the inherently political (and rather desperate) desire to influence decisions of opponents, their supporters, and relevant population groups.
A common example of such internal logic in the game is an attempt to instigate casualties so shocking and hopeless that the event leads the opponent to cut losses and to back away. Even the very first example mentioned in this diary, Irgun, partially (arguably) achieved this goal and caused the British to leave Mandatory Palestine faster than they planned.
Terrorists may aim to influence decisions also in more subtle ways. The intended result may be mental departure (for instance giving up on pro-X activities), causing outrage back home (which then pressures the opponent not necessarily in decision-making process but for instance by contributing to their loss in the next election), polarizing factions and groups, turning world's attention towards relevant cause, or simply wasting resources of opponents who now have to retaliate, increase security, and chase down involved individuals.
On the opposite side of the motivational spectrum, there are significant inhibitors that stop most entities from ever using terrorist methods. Some entities in the game unconditionally reject terrorism, most notably Vatican and associated actors. For others, there are grades of rejection among local populations:
This parameter influences the difficulty of pursuing terrorist methods, how much of a taboo (a secret, DD#23) it would be for an actor to become a terrorist, and how outraged the population will be after a terrorist attack. Its value evolves over time, affected by local situation, events, views, and propaganda. Standard examples of such changes in most campaigns are radicalization under occupation (eg. Afghan mujahideen) and deradicalization during prosperity (eg. Ireland in 21st century).
Terrorist Plots
Once the decision to launch an attack has been made, the plot begins. Perpetrators prepare an attack in stages:
- Gathering funding
- Planning
- Recruitment
- Training
- Positioning
Every stage is executed in the game world, often internationally (for instance: recruiting volunteers from other countries), and leaves numerous intelligence traces that can be discovered by intelligence agencies.
The quality and number of such traces depend on the perpetrators' countercounterintelligence efforts, which include isolated cells, intelligence tradecraft, redundant plans, coordination, saturation, and in some cases even direct countercounter protection by another intelligence agency.
The plot is essentially a race between the executing organization and intelligence agencies determined to disrupt it. An intercepting player - usually local to the location of the planned attack - struggles to gather just enough intelligence to dismantle the plot before it concludes, all without knowing exactly when that conclusion will occur. Often, this means following the classic advice of Robert Watson-Watt: "Give them the third-best to go on with; the second-best comes too late; the best never comes."
Conclusion of the plot, the day of a terrorist attack, is simulated step by step. Simulation defines plot's success, the extent, collateral damage, escape of perpetrators (if attempted), and the evidence left on the scene. In later decades, it also includes the reaction of counterterrorist units.
Initially, an attack is often anonymous (with obvious exceptions, eg. kidnappers reveal their affiliation). It sparks outrage among actors, alters views of affected population groups (including introduction/increase of fear, after which terrorism bears the name), and changes the calculus for local intelligence agency (lowers trust after the failure to prevent the attack, and increases the need to mobilize against future attacks).
Next, authors of the attack may claim the responsibility and/or local player may blame an entity. The former depends on methods, goals, and results of the attack (for instance, IRA won't claim attacks that collaterally killed catholics). The latter is a useful tool in hands of an intelligence agency - though false accusations may be quickly exposed by the perpetrators and sometimes even by other intelligence agencies that have been following the plot.
Either way, connecting the attack and the attacker opens a new set of reactions: directed outrage, anti-attacker views, retaliations, counterterrorist campaigns. At the same time, however, this also may influence decision-making processes in the way that terrorists originally aimed for (eg. Mumbai attacks, where attribution to Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba halted the recovery of Pakistani-Indian diplomacy and increased anti-Pakistan views).
Consequences may be more complex than any side imagined. A terrorist attack is a match that can ignite various fires: launch or contribute to a wave of local terror (eg. years of lead in Italy), cause opposite reactions instead of one that was intended by terrorists (eg. the opponent launches an invasion instead of backing down), change popular views in unusual ways (eg. after Red Army Faction attacks, the public became more sceptical towards counterculture), or even inspire opposite terrorist attacks (eg. IRA and UVF).
Evolution of Terrorism
Terrorist methods evolve over time:
Methods fluctuate roughly along historical lines. In addition, their global prevalence may be partially influenced by intelligence agencies - usually subverting them, for instance, by pushing for stricter airport security (although support for particular methods is also possible, as the history of Iranian intelligence services suggests).
As mentioned in the introduction, methods typically combine into the most dangerous set by the end of the 20th century, capable of changing the course of superpower history (for example, September 11th: hijacking airplanes + suicide attacks + highly coordinated attacks + mass attacks on civilians), with the potential to overwhelm any intelligence agency (eg. ISIS plotted 8 attacks in France in 2015, of which local services managed to stop 6).
This, as is usually the case in the intelligence world, is not only a huge danger but also a huge opportunity. Nations suffering from the most severe, complex attacks can launch the war on terror - a special international decision (a policy, DD#51) that grants intelligence agencies much larger funds, enables projects such as a drone assassination program, and leads to advanced deployments near the perpetrators (all the way to establishing a casus belli and a full invasion).
Shades of Gray
Paramilitary organizations that use terrorist methods - as the Irgun screenshot above suggests - can be perceived globally on a spectrum ranging from "terrorists" to "guerrillas". Their position is affected by their own actions, by players controlling the narrative (through propaganda, DD#56), and by operations that directly frame the target as belonging to one side or the other. This perception, naturally, influences local population support, the ease of operations, and how severely the organization is hunted worldwide.
To make matters even more ambiguous, not all terrorist attacks are real terrorist attacks. Intelligence agencies can carry out false flag operations, in which an event is manufactured (even if real casualties occur) and then used to pin the blame on a chosen target. Obviously, such operations are prone to backfiring and require highly skilled officers, but the CIA in the game can usually execute an equivalent of Operation Northwoods (false flag attacks that would have been pinned on Cubans, as historically proposed in 1962).
Staying in the realm of direct player involvement, intelligence agencies can become state sponsors, control, or even establish paramilitary organizations. Attacks can be fueled with all the tools of espionage - especially smuggling and financial networks. Depending on the local rejection of terrorism as well as the local political system (eg. authoritarian vs. democratic), this may be a tool that is either rejected or encouraged (for example, agencies of communist satellite states commonly supported terrorist organizations around the world). However, for most players in the world, it will remain a grave secret, and working against terrorists is usually much more profitable (for instance, some of the aforementioned communist agencies immediately turned against terrorists after the fall of the USSR).
Last but not least, the player can also find themselves on the receiving end of terrorism. High-profile agencies can be directly targeted by terrorist attacks, with embassies and officers taken hostage, bombings affecting agents in the field, kidnappings of station chiefs, and even attacks on headquarters (eg. the 1993 attack in Langley).
Final Remarks
The next dev diary will be posted on the first Friday of the next month: March 7th.
---
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:
---
"International Counter-Terrorism: 64%, Northern Ireland-related terrorism: 18%" - Top two budget items of MI5 in 2016