A(nother) humble attempt at making Espionage worth using

[SeraphAscending]

Hardly.

The worst case scenarios based on the list given are:

• You lose some opinion with a friendly neighbour
• You forcibly give favours and some EC to a rival
• You potentially have an opinion change with a friendly neighbour
• You could lose / have a drastically diminished starbase (just 1)
• You could have an aggressive fleet appear in your territory (that actually requires a response)
• You could have to put up with some ethics shifting
• You could have a planet revolt

But again, these cost influence so this wouldn’t be happening every other game month, but on occasion, like once every decade or two.

EDIT: Would otherwise agree with you if the resource was still EC as you normally have several thousand of these at a time, so it would be spammable.

I don't get your point or how it contradicts mine.

I was giving a made-up example of an operation too powerful it can not be not too disruptive for players, no matter how high the costs are.
I merely stated that even if you overcompensate with costs, there should be a limit to how powerful operations are.
All that was too illustrate that point and i was not stating that OP or anyone else in this thread was suggesting an operation like that.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

I don't get your point or how it contradicts mine.

I was giving a made-up example of an operation too powerful it can not be not too disruptive for players, no matter how high the costs are.
I merely stated that even if you overcompensate with costs, there should be a limit to how powerful operations are.
All that was too illustrate that point and i was not stating that OP or anyone else in this thread was suggesting an operation like that.

On a second read I see what you’re saying, and no suggestion here is a ‘click to win’ button as you mention. These are effectively adding negative events that one empire can bestow onto another for the formers benefit, and the latters detriment.

I agree with you that there shouldn’t be anything that destroys a fleet, or cripples resources for that very reason. The issue at hand is the current implementation of operations, even if successful, can largely be ignored by the target empire and are of minimal benefit for the instigator for the influence costs at present.

They worked fine when they were EC because you could spam them like crazy, whereas now you can’t.

 

[Leylos]

They worked fine when they were EC because you could spam them like crazy, whereas now you can’t.

Thats the gist of it, yes.

My suggestions are entirely based on the current influence cost. Without the ability to spam operations anymore something needs to be done to make them better.

Because right now, every operation I do is a claim I don't press or a habitat i don't build and those are simply much better.

There is not even a niche this is filling, Espionage is by far the worst way to spend your influence as it stands.

 

[Mineskum]

My thoughts are that they are going to tie the Situations mechanic into the espionage mechanic. So for example when you select "Spark diplomatic incident" a situation is made for this operation. The situation will then progress based on your codebreaking/encryption skill against your targets. Events can then happen that will also alter how the situation develops. As it progresses the operation gets stronger.

This way it makes sense why they haven't touched espionage yet even though we all know it's not in the best place. This also means the influence cost will then make sense as the operation can be quite powerful with various stages of the situation.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

My thoughts are that they are going to tie the Situations mechanic into the espionage mechanic. So for example when you select "Spark diplomatic incident" a situation is made for this operation. The situation will then progress based on your codebreaking/encryption skill against your targets. Events can then happen that will also alter how the situation develops. As it progresses the operation gets stronger.

This way it makes sense why they haven't touched espionage yet even though we all know it's not in the best place. This also means the influence cost will then make sense as the operation can be quite powerful with various stages of the situation.

This is the hope, and at least this way there’s some level of counter-play involved too.

 

[Iberwolf]

I think more espionage should be like the consume star situation, enemy can counter but it has a big effect. For example, bio ascension and irassian could make a virus that starts a virus situation.

I was wondering why viral warfare was not yet added to the intelligence mechanics, it is actually a much more realistic solution than spending astronomical amounts of resources on construction, displacement and maintenance of a bunch of gigantic ships to destroy a species that can be destroyed with a fraction of the resources and with enough espionage and research in biological viruses or computer viruses eliminating or directly weakening populations, here the more isolationist civilizations would no longer be at such a disadvantage, although more open civilizations with wide biodiversity would also be difficult to eliminate by viruses.

 

[grommile]

I was wondering why viral warfare was not yet added to the intelligence mechanics

Because Paradox want MP players to play with Nemesis enabled.

 

[Dementor4]

I feel like the espionage -> situations model introduced by the consume star mission is a good one, and can be expanded to create compromise between the "espionage should matter" camp and the "I don't want to lose a war I didn't know I was fighting" camp.

For example, when you incite a rebellion on an enemy world this wouldn't just mean your empire loses the planet out of the blue, a situation would develop on that planet instead, and would probably be indistinguishable from an ordinary stability-based rebellion, and it could be solved in the same ways. One added feature though, would be the ability to assign an envoy to the situation as counter-espionage. If it turns out there was an enemy spy behind the rebellion, you own agent could potentially root them out and either kill the enemy spy (setting back espionage for the guilty party) capture him (and prove to the GC that they were behind it, reducing their influence gain for a while, and possibly putting them in breach) or maybe yeah, he gets away, but you verify to yourself at least who was behind it and maybe get some added weight put on your encryption techs.

The same could happen for a ton of operations. Assassinate a leader? You get a situation where the leader comes to you in fear for his life because he thinks he's being targeted for some reason or another. Maybe he's being paranoid (and to be fair this situation should probably pop up now and again even without the hostile op) but you could take protective countermeasures (with associated costs) as well as assign your own counter agent to the situation.

Starbases sabotage? The commander of the starbase reports a minor breach in security, nothing to worry about he assures you, starting the situation. Maybe he's right, maybe it was just some random dockworker who dropped his access card down a turbolift, but maybe there's more to it. Spend some extra resources to be sure? Assign a counter agent?

 

[Sutopia]

I feel like the espionage -> situations model introduced by the consume star mission is a good one, and can be expanded to create compromise between the "espionage should matter" camp and the "I don't want to lose a war I didn't know I was fighting" camp.

For example, when you incite a rebellion on an enemy world this wouldn't just mean your empire loses the planet out of the blue, a situation would develop on that planet instead, and would probably be indistinguishable from an ordinary stability-based rebellion, and it could be solved in the same ways. One added feature though, would be the ability to assign an envoy to the situation as counter-espionage. If it turns out there was an enemy spy behind the rebellion, you own agent could potentially root them out and either kill the enemy spy (setting back espionage for the guilty party) capture him (and prove to the GC that they were behind it, reducing their influence gain for a while, and possibly putting them in breach) or maybe yeah, he gets away, but you verify to yourself at least who was behind it and maybe get some added weight put on your encryption techs.

The same could happen for a ton of operations. Assassinate a leader? You get a situation where the leader comes to you in fear for his life because he thinks he's being targeted for some reason or another. Maybe he's being paranoid (and to be fair this situation should probably pop up now and again even without the hostile op) but you could take protective countermeasures (with associated costs) as well as assign your own counter agent to the situation.

Starbases sabotage? The commander of the starbase reports a minor breach in security, nothing to worry about he assures you, starting the situation. Maybe he's right, maybe it was just some random dockworker who dropped his access card down a turbolift, but maybe there's more to it. Spend some extra resources to be sure? Assign a counter agent?

I can simplify these parallel arguments of both sides:

Espionage should be buffed side: I want powerful operations that can cripple an empire as long as I invested enough in espionage and the other side should not be able to counter because any counter will nullify the entire system (reference: Criminal Heritage)

Espionage should stay useless side: There need to be a way to counter espionage otherwise espionage needs to stay as minor annoyance due to lack of counter

I think the first step is to figure out a counter espionage system that can convince both sides by not being an easily available counter mechanism, but an effective one if an empire is willing to invest in it. Without proper counter espionage the discussion always stalls into both sides disagreeing with each other, one side wants more power and the other side call it OP.

 

[Meneye]

I really like this, none of these are too annoying for the target empire to deal with, as the drawbacks are proportional

There's just one thing that concerns me

Assassinate Leader

After stage 1 the player is given 3 target choices to assassinate. The game will always pick one governor, one scientist and one admiral to choose from, preferring targets of a higher level. Instead of a governor the game may also randomly choose their ruler and instead of an Admiral the game may also randomly choose a General. When the operation is successful, the target either dies, is maimed (-40 years lifespan) or gains a negative trait limiting their effectiveness by a small amount.

This could get annoying fast if an empire keeps doing this or several empires dogpile on one target. There should be a cooldown, or maybe the empire gets more protection against this operation the more this is done, like how most real life assassin-prone countries keep investing in better security measures as new vulnerabilities are uncovered.

Also, just me personally, but I'd prefer the 3 targets to be completely random, with assets changing the pool into their category of leaders.

 

[SeraphAscending]

the other side should not be able to counter because any counter will nullify the entire system

I disagree. There should always be a way to nullify the entire operation - but it should be expensive.
Avoid loss of a strategically valuable starbase at significant expenses reinforcing security - but all that even on a hunch. You have to invest significantly at any hint of security breach.
If you aren't under significant threat by neighboring powers, you might not care too much about some security breaches and would rather have potential negative effects than overinvest in investigations.

This way espionage is still powerful, because it forces strategic decisions to be made. It still puts the target in the defensive, but they have a way out if their economy allows for it.

But in general there should be a "heightened security alert" modifier applied to the target empire that gives +1 hostile operation difficulty for 5 years. (stacking)
So you can't just completely disable their economy by having two empires repeatedly spamming operations and draining their economy with security measures.
Spamming them with operations should severely weaken them, but it shouldn't be possible continously.

 

[A2ch0n]

I disagree. There should always be a way to nullify the entire operation - but it should be expensive.

I didn't exactly need to be that expensive. But it need to make a comparison between the offensive espionage capabilities of the attacker vs the protection of the defender. Or in other terms: Codebreaking and Encryption need to be part of that calculation. It's similar to all other Stellaris systems. If you are good at something, you win. Warfare and diplomatic weight are the same.

I invested enough in espionage and the other side should not be able to counter because any counter will nullify the entire system

Originally i said exactly the same as you. A counter mechanism would nullify it, especially warmonger empires that don't care for espionage themself would stack up everything in defense and you wouldn't have any chance to harm them. But after some intensive thinking about it i had another solution based on the new situation system.

This would need two things: First a anonymous situation that shared some similarities with other situations that could be investigated by assigning an Envoy (!) and only by an envoy. In the ongoing investigation you can maybe assign some additional resources like in other situations too, to boost you speed or encryption level by one or two. Second the own espionage capabilities are compared with the of the attacker and if you are good enough you can mitigate the damage partial or even complete. But a stronger attacker will always do some harm and a espionage focused master get the full reward.

I made a entire suggestion a while ago if you're interested. Link in my signature.

 

[grommile]

A counter mechanism would nullify it, especially warmonger empires that don't care for espionage themself would stack up everything in defense and you wouldn't have any chance to harm them.

Good!

Even the Darloks should not be able to infiltrate an Elerian police state to commit major sabotage.

And the reason I am going full turtle on covops is that I don't want to play covops at all in a game that isn't 100% about being a covert operative or a covops agency director, because every covops subgame in games that are not All About Covops has been sufficiently bad to make me believe this is a categorical issue.

When I want covops gameplay, I will play Heat Signature or Orwell or a Low Chaos Dishonored run.

 

[SeraphAscending]

It's similar to all other Stellaris systems. If you are good at something, you win. Warfare and diplomatic weight are the same.

No, it is not that similar.
All other mechanics are open. Espionage is hidden.
That is a significant difference.
But in general, i do think that espionage should still be powerful. Because of it's hidden nature, there should be an "opt out" possibility - even if coming at significant economic cost. Turtling down in that regard should always be possible, otherwise a lot of people are going to hate whatever system you introduce.

Potentially also policy that increases security by reducing codebreaking by 2 and increases encyption by 1.
Something that you might get a tech bonus for to enhance for a -4/+2 and more.
That way you'd truly opt out of that, because engaging you in that way is extremely hard. The same way investing all your alloys in system defense should make you difficult to engange via military, but losing you a lot of offensive strength.

 

[A2ch0n]

Good!

Absolutely not good! Espionage should be an own playstyle and be able to kinda "control" agressive warmongers by manipulating them in the spys favor.

Turtling down in that regard should always be possible, otherwise a lot of people are going to hate whatever system you introduce

That should definitely not be possible. I for myself hate warmongers and especially genocidals but they are part of the game and i have to deal with them (i'm forced to build strong defences and even a fleet early on) and i dislike to do that. From my point of view it's not different from forcing such an empire with espionage to deal with other problems than agressive expanding.

-----
But before this get out of hand, i have faught this fight (strong espionage vs weak or even none) multiple times now. I'm quite tired to argument this another time even despite the fact that espionage is by far my most beloved and important topic. I made my point and would suggest that we let this discussion rest until the custodians are done with their rework. Then i'll happily discuss this again if necessary. Maybe i do another complete review thread like last time after the release.

 

[grommile]

From my point of view it's not different from forcing such an empire with espionage to deal with other problems than agressive expanding.

So first up, dealing with the militaristic aggressors is inherent to the 4X genre. If you don't like dealing with that, why are you here?

Secondly, there's a big difference between the Darloks and the Mrrshan, which is that the Mrrshan have to declare war before they're allowed to hurt me, and when they come to hurt me, it's with things I can see.

 

[SeraphAscending]

From my point of view it's not different from forcing such an empire with espionage to deal with other problems than agressive expanding.

Yes, it is different.
You just do not acknowledge the severity of the difference.

You see militaristic aggressors. You can invest in seeing their preparations for war, you can turtle down and prepare yourself.
This is not possible for espionage. It just suddenly goes boom.
As long as there is no way to reliably opt out of this game mechanic (even if at a cost), people will absolutely hate any espionage system you build. There are a lot of people that absolutely hate that as a gameplay mechanic.
There is literally no way to build an impactful espionage system in a 4X game that does not get an incredibly amount of hate by the game's community. In most cases so much that people recommend not activating/buying certain DLCs to disable these mechanics entirely. The only way to both have a strong espionage system and not have hundreds of people rant about it in the forum is if there is a way to significantly mitigate the effects it can have on you.

Espionage and military warfare are very, very different in terms of game mechanics and player experience. They share nothing except for the aspect of intending to harm the opponent. Beyond that they share literally nothing.

 

[Varren]

I can simplify these parallel arguments of both sides:

Espionage should be buffed side: I want powerful operations that can cripple an empire as long as I invested enough in espionage and the other side should not be able to counter because any counter will nullify the entire system (reference: Criminal Heritage)

Espionage should stay useless side: There need to be a way to counter espionage otherwise espionage needs to stay as minor annoyance due to lack of counter

I think the first step is to figure out a counter espionage system that can convince both sides by not being an easily available counter mechanism, but an effective one if an empire is willing to invest in it. Without proper counter espionage the discussion always stalls into both sides disagreeing with each other, one side wants more power and the other side call it OP.

The pro-espionage side has presented plenty of operations with good counterplay. To sum up:

1. Operations that target specific vulnerabilities in a target, such that, in the best case, they're indistinguishable from bad luck. For instance, let's say there's an X% chance per year that a faction will turn radical and launch a terrorist attack. A successful Arm Radicals operation greatly increases that chance. If there's no risk of the faction radicalizing (because they're content), the operation is ineffective. If the faction is so weak that any terrorist attack they carry out will be minor, the operation is ineffective. You can only deal major damage if your target is already at risk of a major terrorist attack (due to carelessness or a gamble on their part).
2. Operations that generate their own counterplays, thus effectively serving as distractions unless the target either can't afford the counter or chooses to take it on the chin. These include all the situation-based operations people have proposed.
3. Operations that have relatively minor and non-spammable effects. For example, an operation that gives you a backdoor to a certain station's security which expires in five years and cannot be stockpiled. When your fleets enter that station's system, they exploit the backdoor, disabling the station's shields and debuffing its combat abilities. That can potentially turn the tide of a single battle, but it shouldn't decide the war all by itself (unless your opponent's entire defensive strategy relies on that particular station, in which case they deserve to lose).
4. Operations that benefit you without overtly harming the target (eg tech stealing).

 

[Sutopia]

The pro-espionage side has presented plenty of operations with good counterplay. To sum up:

1. Operations that target specific vulnerabilities in a target, such that, in the best case, they're indistinguishable from bad luck. For instance, let's say there's an X% chance per year that a faction will turn radical and launch a terrorist attack. A successful Arm Radicals operation greatly increases that chance. If there's no risk of the faction radicalizing (because they're content), the operation is ineffective. If the faction is so weak that any terrorist attack they carry out will be minor, the operation is ineffective. You can only deal major damage if your target is already at risk of a major terrorist attack (due to carelessness or a gamble on their part).
2. Operations that generate their own counterplays, thus effectively serving as distractions unless the target either can't afford the counter or chooses to take it on the chin. These include all the situation-based operations people have proposed.
3. Operations that have relatively minor and non-spammable effects. For example, an operation that gives you a backdoor to a certain station's security which expires in five years and cannot be stockpiled. When your fleets enter that station's system, they exploit the backdoor, disabling the station's shields and debuffing its combat abilities. That can potentially turn the tide of a single battle, but it shouldn't decide the war all by itself (unless your opponent's entire defensive strategy relies on that particular station, in which case they deserve to lose).
4. Operations that benefit you without overtly harming the target (eg tech stealing).

I would say situation is the least desirable counter mechanism since the side on defense only needs to flip a switch then can totally forget about it. If you’re targeting a stronger empire they most definitely have resource doing so and you probably wouldn’t bother spying on a lesser empire.

Otherwise those all sound like anti-espionage side argument keeping operations as minor annoyance.

 

[GoldenSageBondi]

The best time to use Espionage is when you have a Criminal Heritage Megacorp so you can have vision across more worlds.