• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #197: Operations and Assets

*** CLASSIFICATION LEVEL A3 - EYES ONLY - DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
NOTE: FIND WHOEVER DID THE POOR JOB OF REDACTING THIS DOCUMENT, RELIEVE THEM OF THEIR DUTIES, AND DELIVER THEM TO DEEP SPACE BLACK SITE X-23 IMMEDIATELY. I WISH TO HAVE A LONG CONVERSATION WITH THEM.
- "GOLD SLUG", PLIFF-PLAFF HEIRARCHY INTELLIGENCE

Hello!

Today we’re going deeper into some of the things you can do with the Spy Networks your envoys carefully built up last week.

As noted there, building up a Spy Network will passively provide Intel on the empire they are in as their Infiltration Level increases. (This was previously called “Spy Network Level” but has been renamed for clarity.) Once they've built up enough strength, you can choose to run Operations within the empire. A strong Spy Network can have sufficient bandwidth to run multiple Operations simultaneously.

Like First Contact, Operations use a variant of the Archaeology system first introduced in Ancient Relics. Unlike Archaeology and First Contact, however, when Operations complete objectives necessary to complete their mission, they usually do not require your intervention unless something important has come up.

When starting an Operation, you have the option of assigning a single Asset to the mission.

Operations have an energy credit cost to initiate as well as energy upkeep while ongoing. Most Operations pause for your final approval before they initiate their final step, but your operatives can be given permission to launch as soon as it is ready in the UI.

Covert missions are a little tricky, and sometimes things are a little unpredictable. If problems arise during the mission, your spymaster may contact you seeking guidance. Do you provide them with additional resources to bribe the problem away, have them dedicate a larger portion of the Spy Network to the mission (assuming they have any unallocated Infiltration available), or do you scrap the mission and leave the Asset assigned to the mission out to dry? Likewise, even when things go according to plan, sometimes your operatives have to take what they can get - while other times they may stumble upon far more than they expected.

1611140847658.png

Yes, you can run operations within a hive.

Completing Operations often has an impact on your Infiltration Level - some resources get compromised or otherwise unusable, and depending on the Operation you performed, a hornet’s nest of security may have been stirred. If you had an Asset assigned to the Operation, you will often be given a chance to use them as a scapegoat, burning them to protect the rest of the Network.

Operation Types

We’ve split Operations into four different categories, and here’s a more detailed summary of each type and a few of the Operations we’re planning. (As always with in-development sneak peeks, these are subject to change.)

Subterfuge Operations are common Operations that work to improve the state of the network or do good old fashioned spying on the target empire. Gather Information, Acquire Asset, and Steal Technology are examples of planned Subterfuge Operations.

Sabotage Operations are dedicated to destruction of tangible or intangible things. Sabotage Starbase and Diplomatic Incident are examples of planned Sabotage Operations.

Manipulation Operations twist the truth and replace it with better truths that serve your empire’s needs. Smear Campaign and Extort Favors are examples of planned Manipulation Operations.

Provocations are the most extreme Operations that are almost guaranteed to have blowback. These tend to be relatively difficult to pull off but have major results. Arm Privateers is an example of a Provocation.

Okay, enough of that.

Examples of Operations

Gather Information
(Subterfuge) is one of the simplest Operations, requiring an Infiltration of 20 or higher to initiate. Your spymaster will send their operatives out to, well, covertly gather information. After a relatively short period of time the spymaster will deliver a dossier containing the intelligence to you, which might grant a bonus to current Intel level or provide an Intel Report granting increased Intel on a category for a time period.

It’s not the most glamorous of missions, but should rarely backfire in a spectacular manner. Since Intel decays slowly (currently set to 1 point per year), the Gather Information Operation provides a fairly consistent way to learn more about the galaxy.

Assigning an Asset to the mission will skew the results towards the Asset’s interests, significantly increasing the chance of getting an Intel Report targeting the empire’s Government, Diplomacy, Military, Economy, or Technology.

1611143051274.png

Many Jeferians died to bring us this work-in-progress screenshot.

1611142885429.png
1611143729872.png

Operations do not always produce the same results.


Steal Technology (Subterfuge, Technology) is another one that has created a stir on the forums. Through a variety of means, your agents will attempt to gain access to the research databases of the target. Depending on how things go, several outcomes could occur - they might be able to get some hints as to how a technology works (granting it as a research option and providing some progress), they may be able to leave a backdoor (increasing your empire’s research speed for a time), or if things get messy, they could just destroy whatever research they can (inflicting penalties on the target). Your operatives can only take research that your empire has the hope of understanding, so you must meet all appropriate prerequisites.

This leads to an interesting situation where you ideally want to be spying on an empire of greater technological prowess than your own, but that in itself is riskier since they may have a better chance of catching your operatives.


1611140962353.png

These blueprints are like an Escher drawing.

The Enigmatic Engineering Ascension Perk will block these attempts, as it makes your technology impossible for other empires to reverse-engineer. The spying empire will not know this, however, until they try.

1611140980117.png

The Sensor Range effect has been replaced as well.

Smear Campaign (Manipulation, Diplomacy) is dedicated to working against the relationship two empires may have. After the first chapter completes, you'll have the choice of which relationship you wish your operatives to attempt to diminish. Later, your agents will inform you of the tactics they want to use, with different schemes proposed based on the nature of the selected empires.

In this example, I'm trying to create rifts within a nearby federation by running Smear Campaigns.

1611145428878.png


And finally my agents have informed me that they're ready to unleash misinformation upon an unsuspecting foe.

1611145550362.png


1611145587019.png


Meanwhile, over in the Ztrakpor Confederated Domains...
1611145700320.png


Since their Counter-Espionage measures did not detect our shenanigans, it seems that our agents chose to kick things up a notch and add sabotage of research facilities to the false charges. They've caught wind of our false-flag operation as if they had actually uncovered an operation being being performed by their so-called ally!

The galaxy shall hear of this!

Assets

Assets have been mentioned a few times now, and the Acquire Asset (Subterfuge, Government) is the most consistent way to gain them. It’s possible to gain Assets through random events during other Operations, but tempting them into your service is much more reliable.

Each Asset has two categories they excel at - one of each from Subterfuge, Sabotage, or Manipulation, and Government, Diplomacy, Military, Economy, or Technology. When an Operation is initiated, you can assign the Asset to be part of it, and for each category that matches, the Asset will make completing the mission easier.

Assets in regular empires are generally everyday people - a disgruntled bureaucrat, an ambitious criminal underling, or a sympathetic pop icon. In gestalt empires, they may be deviant drones that your operatives have found a way to utilize to their advantage, or they might be objects that they have taken control of - a damaged pheromone emitter, a deviant labor drone, a hacked coordination system, or a virus introduced into an engagement protocol.

1611155327583.png

Blorg. James Blorg.

Hask'Endek here specializes in Subterfuge and Government related activities, making them especially effective when assigned to the Acquire Asset mission. It turns out that having a bureaucrat able to sift through government records to find other potential marks is incredibly helpful!

If complications arise, having an expendable lackey around to take the fall for your operatives can also be attractive. While you may lure them into service with promises of support and glory, they’re really just pawns in your greater galactic schemes. Often, their true fate is to be "cleaned up" as a loose end to preserve the Spy Network's Infiltration Level after an Operation completes.

That's it for this week. Next week I plan on going over some of the other, nastier Operations.
redacted.png


See you then!
 
  • 152Like
  • 82Love
  • 13
  • 9
  • 8
Reactions:
On being hit by a faked operation, I would really like the option to try and establish if the operation is by who it appears. So you get three options - one is 'We cannot jump to conclusions' - your counter-intel keeps investigating, and might be able to uncover if an empire is framed (though not necessarily who by). However if they were right in the first place, this leaves your vulnerable to further operations from that empire while the investigation is ongoing. The other two would be quiet counter-measures against the apparent perpetrator, and vocal denouncement.

Perhaps this is unnecessary, but I fear I will find the total fog of uncertainty around who committed operations a little stressful and not so enjoyable.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
On being hit by a faked operation, I would really like the option to try and establish if the operation is by who it appears. So you get three options - one is 'We cannot jump to conclusions' - your counter-intel keeps investigating, and might be able to uncover if an empire is framed (though not necessarily who by). However if they were right in the first place, this leaves your vulnerable to further operations from that empire while the investigation is ongoing. The other two would be quiet counter-measures against the apparent perpetrator, and vocal denouncement.

Perhaps this is unnecessary, but I fear I will find the total fog of uncertainty around who committed operations a little stressful and not so enjoyable.

Personally, I think that uncertainty and fog makes espionage all the better. With espionage, you shouldn't know for certain if something was a plant or not, especially with MP.

You can use circumstance to try and figure out what's happening. If you have abysmal counter-espionage and no encryption or decryption technologies, and you suddenly "catch" some foreign agents, it's likely just a plant. Where as if you are a psionic empire with enigmatic engineering, it's much more likely you actually caught a spy.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Personally, I think that uncertainty and fog makes espionage all the better. With espionage, you shouldn't know for certain if something was a plant or not, especially with MP.
Yes, but look at what he actually wrote and suggested. Uncertainty is fine, but if it just leads to inability to be careful it'll just be too beneficial to do false flags all the time. False flag operations have risks - but so does looking for the false flag (as @mammonmachine suggests with the downside of checking for a false flag; if you check every operation against you, you will likely compromise your counter-intelligence severely). If the options for every dicovered operation are to either react naively or basically ignore it, false flag stuff will be far too powerful.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, but look at what he actually wrote and suggested. Uncertainty is fine, but if it just leads to inability to be careful it'll just be too beneficial to do false flags all the time. False flag operations have risks - but so does looking for the false flag (as @mammonmachine suggests with the downside of checking for a false flag; if you check every operation against you, you will likely compromise your counter-intelligence severely). If the options for every dicovered operation are to either react naively or basically ignore it, false flag stuff will be far too powerful.

In general, i think the idea to invest counter-espionage resources into investigating is a great idea!
Making it a decision to lower your general counter-espionage capabilities at the benefit of finding out whether your ally actually broke your trust - but leaving you more vulnerable for the time being, since your counter-espionage resources are partially allocated to these investigations.
 
Hmm. I'm against the idea of "just investigate more" to find out who REALLY did it. I'm pretty sure most people are just going to click yes. The benefits of such an ability (Knowing exactly who your enemy is) is too big compared to the benefits of what we've seen of spying so far (I think the benefits of spying so far are at a decent level from what we've been shown).

I'm not against the idea of a kind of counter-spy system similar to all those sci-fi movies where you have the government or whatever tracking down the perpetrator (Minority Report, Three days of the Condor, The Running Man...). You'd then have to send your leader to track down this fugitive
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, but look at what he actually wrote and suggested. Uncertainty is fine, but if it just leads to inability to be careful it'll just be too beneficial to do false flags all the time. False flag operations have risks - but so does looking for the false flag (as @mammonmachine suggests with the downside of checking for a false flag; if you check every operation against you, you will likely compromise your counter-intelligence severely). If the options for every dicovered operation are to either react naively or basically ignore it, false flag stuff will be far too powerful.

Honestly, it doesn't matter too much if there are risks, or even the potential to fail finding out. All you'd need to do is succeed one time to know for absolute certain that X empire is spying on you, OR that someone is trying to worsen your relationship with Y empire.

Imagine you are playing as a pacifist xenophile with diplomatic corp in a multiplayer game. Except inside of this friendly veneer, you are secretly using espionage to try and control the galaxy. Sounds like a fun RP, right? But with this suggested system, all you need is for ONE empire to succeed on the "look deeper" and now the jig is up, everyone knows what you are doing. If this mechanic doesn't exist though, you'll still probably be caught once or twice, but you can hide behind the "Oh it was a false flag trying to ruin what a good relationship we have". Now, they might not believe you, but you have an excuse.

The thing about a false flag operation, is that the ONLY thing it does is worsen relations, and only if the target empire reveals the espionage. Compare that to extorting favors, stealing research, all things which have direct and tangible benefits.

What I'd like to see for additional counter-espionage is a targeted espionage operation against an empire. This will give you additional defense against any operations they might launch, reveal the current level of infiltration they have on you, or compromise an asset they have on you. Doing this requires taking aggressive action against the empire who your are suspicious of, which is a risk and also a significant opportunity cost.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On being hit by a faked operation, I would really like the option to try and establish if the operation is by who it appears. So you get three options - one is 'We cannot jump to conclusions' - your counter-intel keeps investigating, and might be able to uncover if an empire is framed (though not necessarily who by). However if they were right in the first place, this leaves your vulnerable to further operations from that empire while the investigation is ongoing. The other two would be quiet counter-measures against the apparent perpetrator, and vocal denouncement.

Perhaps this is unnecessary, but I fear I will find the total fog of uncertainty around who committed operations a little stressful and not so enjoyable.

This feels like it would be unfair, as written, for the empire performing the operation. They’ve already invested resources in an effective spy network and have rolled the dice against your counter espionage. If your counter wasn’t up to the task where is the fun in a reroll? There would need to be some significant downsides to that ”investigate further” button to make it not unfair and unfun.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Honestly, it doesn't matter too much if there are risks, or even the potential to fail finding out. All you'd need to do is succeed one time to know for absolute certain that X empire is spying on you, OR that someone is trying to worsen your relationship with Y empire.
Whoa, there, tiger - who said you found out who was responsible for the false flag? You just find evidence that it was a false flag and the implicated empire wasn't responsible. Who really did it? Well, do you want to invest more with a 99% chance of failure (because they almost certainly didn't use their own agents).

This feels like it would be unfair, as written, for the empire performing the operation. They’ve already invested resources in an effective spy network and have rolled the dice against your counter espionage. If your counter wasn’t up to the task where is the fun in a reroll? There would need to be some significant downsides to that ”investigate further” button to make it not unfair and unfun.
It didn't sound to me like there was much "rolling against counter-intelligence" going on - if there is then maybe the added option isn't necessary. But the idea of the false flag is that it works because it's caught by counter-intelligence, so even a "fail" by CInt is made to look like a success. If that's the way it works, then CInt might as well not roll.

Basically, I wouldn't want to see false flag projects be essentially risk-free for the perpetrator; if they are, then I forsee them being spammed to death.
 
Whoa, there, tiger - who said you found out who was responsible for the false flag? You just find evidence that it was a false flag and the implicated empire wasn't responsible. Who really did it? Well, do you want to invest more with a 99% chance of failure (because they almost certainly didn't use their own agents).


It didn't sound to me like there was much "rolling against counter-intelligence" going on - if there is then maybe the added option isn't necessary. But the idea of the false flag is that it works because it's caught by counter-intelligence, so even a "fail" by CInt is made to look like a success. If that's the way it works, then CInt might as well not roll.

Basically, I wouldn't want to see false flag projects be essentially risk-free for the perpetrator; if they are, then I forsee them being spammed to death.

Here's how I understand it working:
Empire A launches an operation on B to frame empire C
1) If empire A wins against the Counter intelligence of empire B, then empire B gets "empire C caught doing espionage on us!"
2) If empire A fails against the Counter intelligence of empire B, then empire B gets "empire A caught doing espionage on us!"

All the false flag does on a success is frame the other empire. It can be effectively countered by taking the "maintain a quiet watch" option anyway (at least from what it seems from the diary. That part may be wrong). But you don't get to both accomplish a sabotage AND blame another empire for it. If you get caught by their counter-espionage, you got caught, and the only way to can try to blame it on someone else is by saying "They are framing me!".
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Here's how I understand it working:
Empire A launches an operation on B to frame empire C
1) If empire A wins against the Counter intelligence of empire B, then empire B gets "empire C caught doing espionage on us!"
2) If empire A fails against the Counter intelligence of empire B, then empire B gets "empire A caught doing espionage on us!"
If that's how it works, that would be fair enough - but I'm not sure I see how (IRL) a team caught doing a false flag IRL would look like they were carrying out an operation for A. They would look just like a team from C, unless you investigate more closely after the capture.
 
If that's how it works, that would be fair enough - but I'm not sure I see how (IRL) a team caught doing a false flag IRL would look like they were carrying out an operation for A. They would look just like a team from C, unless you investigate more closely after the capture.
"Looking closer" is part of the original roll. High defence means your agents look beyond the obvious, low defence means everyone takes the pollen covered starbase diagram labelled "Put bombs here, fellow Blorg" completely at face value. Including you.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I also think there should be some way to at least find out that the framed empire DIDN'T do it, at a high resource and time cost, maybe even an Influence cost.

Otherwise, it's just going to be complete fog of war and you won't be able to trust anyone at all unless you just get lucky RNG rolls. There's a lack of choice and agency in that.

If you can force another empire to dedicate a lot of resources to debunking a false flag, then the operation was worthwhile even if the false flag is uncovered.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I also think there should be some way to at least find out that the framed empire DIDN'T do it, at a high resource and time cost, maybe even an Influence cost.

Otherwise, it's just going to be complete fog of war and you won't be able to trust anyone at all unless you just get lucky RNG rolls. There's a lack of choice and agency in that.

If you can force another empire to dedicate a lot of resources to debunking a false flag, then the operation was worthwhile even if the false flag is uncovered.

I completely get where you're coming from. Personally I disagree when it comes to spreading false information, but that's exactly how I feel about sabotage-style missions. That they create a lack of agency and just feel like trolling.

On false flags, I actually like that because of the point you raise here: "Otherwise, it's just going to be complete fog of war and you won't be able to trust anyone at all." To me, that's exactly how an intelligence system should work. A good espionage mechanic should be about sowing mistrust and making players question the information they're making their decisions on.

Personally, I'll think that situation is a feature, not a bug. If there's a Romulan Empire out there and I'm trying to figure out whether my information is good, bad or cooked to serve some green-blooded end, I'll be all about it.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
Personally, I think that uncertainty and fog makes espionage all the better. With espionage, you shouldn't know for certain if something was a plant or not, especially with MP.

You can use circumstance to try and figure out what's happening. If you have abysmal counter-espionage and no encryption or decryption technologies, and you suddenly "catch" some foreign agents, it's likely just a plant. Where as if you are a psionic empire with enigmatic engineering, it's much more likely you actually caught a spy.

Agreed.

And I think that's the whole point. A good espionage empire should basically be able to get other empires to fight their wars for them.

I think that's just sort of the risk of asymmetric play styles. I feel like that's really no difference between this and feeling stressed that your neighbor has a larger navy or more powerful guns than you. There is a path to power that they have invested in and you have not, and it creates vulnerabilities. That should be disruptive and destabilizing. To me that's a feature, not a bug.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
I also think "trust" becoming scarce will encourage more "ethical" diplomacy and alignment, if your allies are also fanatic egalitarians you can probably trust them :p
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I also think "trust" becoming scarce will encourage more "ethical" diplomacy and alignment, if your allies are also fanatic egalitarians you can probably trust them :p

Agreed.

I think the big (enormous) thing this system will need is more positive foundations for relationships. I suggest trade.

Trust should be a valuable commodity, and losing it should come at a real cost. If I spy on some other empire, it shouldn't just come at the risk of generically reducing their opinion of me. What are the stakes there? Really, the only consequences are if I make them angry enough to declare war. That's not likely unless they already dislike me, and even then only if we're neighbors.

When it comes to diplomacy we need something else to motivate empires to build and preserve relationships. If trade routes are a valuable, important part of my diplomacy, then spying on other empires will risk my access to their resources and markets. That will create a real concern to offset the incentives of spying.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Espionage in strategy games is one of those things that looks very exciting on paper, but in practice, seems to usually cause more irritation than fun. This is because a player may or may not choose to use espionage extensively in a given game, but they will be subject to the espionage of other empires in every game, and being the target of enemy espionage is inherently non-fun: You often don't know when you've been successful (because other empires just won't bother if your counter-espionage is high), you often don't know when you've been unsuccessful, and frankly, when you are given information on being targeted you're usually just annoyed because it's too late to change the outcome; all the counterplay is preventative, and therefore a boringly binary choice: Do I pay the anti-spy tax or no? And afterwards, it usually feels like you chose wrong. We don't even have to look that far to see an example of this; take Crusader Kings (both II and III), where there are game settings to cut down on the intrigue options available against players, because "the AI keeps seducing all my daughters, wives, and sisters" or "it's way too easy for human players to assassinate each other". And that is one of the most benign examples of espionage in strategy games that I can think of (probably because the counterplay is mostly just getting a better spymaster, which has little to no opportunity cost, and sometimes even requires a bit of cleverness).

Don't get me wrong, I am interested like everyone – some of this stuff sounds very cool – and will happily play it with an open mind, however, it seems a little lofty to expect Stellaris to succeed where all I've seen in other games has been seriously underwhelming. (If anyone disagrees and can think of a game with an espionage system that is fun & engaging even when you're the one being targeted, do let me know; I would love to be wrong here.)
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
We don't even have to look that far to see an example of this; take Crusader Kings (both II and III), where there are game settings to cut down on the intrigue options available against players, because "the AI keeps seducing all my daughters, wives, and sisters" or "it's way too easy for human players to assassinate each other". And that is one of the most benign examples of espionage in strategy games that I can think of (probably because the counterplay is mostly just getting a better spymaster, which has little to no opportunity cost, and sometimes even requires a bit of cleverness).
I think Crusader Kings' configurability is what makes the concept work. Because if that level of espionage is not something you enjoy, you can disable it. It's a great solution to that problem.
It gives you the option to have full features with a great extent, but not have it ruin the fun for some people for whom the full extent is too much.
 
  • 1
Reactions: