Censorship on terrorism

[Modo44]

Originally posted by vovan
I don't know I think terrorism *could* play a major role in some people's tactics. Imagine: you are planning to attack a size 24 city. Before you go in, you send on of your spies and destroy a happiness building (suicide bombing? Doesn't have to be, could just call it undermining the structure or something). People riot, and the city is rendered unable to produce it's own defenses.

There was an option for Probes in SMAC: Incite Drone Riots. Guess what it did...

But the main problem with such units is that they are terribly easy to spot, as opposed to actual terrorists/special forces. So, except if armed with a long-range Paradrop ability, they would be pretty useless, except in an all-out war.

[curtsibling]

I think the problem stems from people's misconceptions of what a 'terrorist' is.

The guerrillas in CIV3 could be termed 'terror' units if you are fighting them.

In CIV3 bombing a defenceless city with heavy aircraft could be a 'terror tactic.'

'Terror' is not merely restricted to CNN-generated Osama phantom menaces.

[Mace]

Originally posted by CyberShy


c'mon, there are a billion real-world things not in the game!

Well of course, but this particular real world thing *was* in Civ1 and Civ2...

Why take it out?

[wrylachlan]

Personally I have no desire to see Terrorism implemented, mainly because on the scale we're talking about individual acts of terrorism are insignificant, and the overall effects of terrorism are generally modelled by citizen unhappiness, culture, etc.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Personally I have no desire to see Terrorism implemented, mainly because on the scale we're talking about individual acts of terrorism are insignificant, and the overall effects of terrorism are generally modelled by citizen unhappiness, culture, etc.

That's right. Nothing happened on the world scale on the 9/11.

[Ninot]

the problem I see with implementing terrorism is that it would be futile in a way.

State sponsored terrorism does alot of damage world wide, but nothing huge ala 9/11, right?

and in the game, why would you hire a suicide bomber to kill 20 people in a bus somewhere (which cant be representable at all), when you could declare war and drop a bomb and take out the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of lives?

if a country commited something like 9/11, it would be an act of war, obviously. And personally, I rather advance my troops over a border and bomb that city than waste an aircraft like that.

There is little point for the game to have independant terrorists like Al Qaeda, and it would be futile for it to have state sponsored terrorism, IMHO.

[vovan]

Originally posted by Ninot
and in the game, why would you hire a suicide bomber to kill 20 people in a bus somewhere (which cant be representable at all), when you could declare war and drop a bomb and take out the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of lives?

But you could poison the water supply to take the city down one pop, which might knock the city size down one category and thus decrease the defensive bonuses the troops in it get. (If such concepts as city defense bonuses and different city size categories still exist, of course.)

Then again, that'd be most useful in an all out war, and there, bombarding the city would do the trick just as well.

[TechWins]

From a business standpoint I can understand Firaxis not wishing to upset the absurdly hypocritical American public at large.

From an 'ethical' standpoint Firaxis is being hypocritical, as aforementioned examples have been provided by others, but it is only fitting considering they too fall under the category of the American public at large.

From a gameplay standpoint I am not overly bothered by terrorism not being included; it's not as if it's a make or break gameplay issue.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Mace


Well of course, but this particular real world thing *was* in Civ1 and Civ2...

Why take it out?

because it was never fun at all, it hardly had any impact as well. Besides that, using bombers in cIIIv you could do basicly the same.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Ninot
the problem I see with implementing terrorism is that it would be futile in a way.

State sponsored terrorism does alot of damage world wide, but nothing huge ala 9/11, right?

You don´t read a lot of Chomsky, do you?

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by Ninot

and in the game, why would you hire a suicide bomber to kill 20 people in a bus somewhere (which cant be representable at all), when you could declare war and drop a bomb and take out the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of lives?

if a country commited something like 9/11, it would be an act of war, obviously. And personally, I rather advance my troops over a border and bomb that city than waste an aircraft like that.

There is little point for the game to have independant terrorists like Al Qaeda, and it would be futile for it to have state sponsored terrorism, IMHO.

I don't agree with you.

Didn't Taliban Afghanistan use to sponsor Al Qaeda (before being crushed by the coalition) ?
French partisans did commit terrorist attacks against the occupying Wehrmacht during WW2. It is said that it helped a bit the Allied.
And what about the (military) support Contras gained from the United States when they were fighting the Nicaraguan Govt ? Nothing of importance ?
And Great Britain, which organised terrorism against German basis in Arabia (Lawrence and his fedaykins).
And Khadafi and his hobby of destroying commercial flights...
And not to seem too partial, France bombing Tunisian innocents village during the Algerian independance.
And because I am French, I'll recall the murder of president Allende of Chile planned, maybe hmm, by the CIA ? The consequence wasn't war.

I mean it. Terrorism has, and has ever had, a big impact on inter-STATE relationships. Inside or outside war periods.

[Zoid]

And I want to be able to strike a devastating blow at the heart of the evil empire, thus spreading fear and mistrust among its population and financial market

[Mace]

Originally posted by CyberShy


because it was never fun at all, it hardly had any impact as well. Besides that, using bombers in cIIIv you could do basicly the same.

That is debateable...but I'll not go there.

If Firaxis removes terrorism-type espionage missions because of game balance issues or overcomplication, that's fine. But if Firaxis removes it because of political correctness...that would be silly.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by M. le Comte


I don't agree with you.

Didn't Taliban Afghanistan use to sponsor Al Qaeda (before being crushed by the coalition) ?
French partisans did commit terrorist attacks against the occupying Wehrmacht during WW2. It is said that it helped a bit the Allied.
And what about the (military) support Contras gained from the United States when they were fighting the Nicaraguan Govt ? Nothing of importance ?
And Great Britain, which organised terrorism against German basis in Arabia (Lawrence and his fedaykins).
And Khadafi and his hobby of destroying commercial flights...
And not to seem too partial, France bombing Tunisian innocents village during the Algerian independance.
And because I am French, I'll recall the murder of president Allende of Chile planned, maybe hmm, by the CIA ? The consequence wasn't war.

I mean it. Terrorism has, and has ever had, a big impact on inter-STATE relationships. Inside or outside war periods.

You make many great points.

Honestly, I'd like to have terrorism in the game just because I love a game that gives all the possibilities.

but...

I myself find it hard to imagine how the game could put in terrorism and make it an efficient and viable option for the player or for the AI.

[Fake Boris]

Why would want to blow a schoolbus when you can level an entire city with bombers?