Censorship on terrorism

[M. le Comte]

In the real world, I DO NOT support Bin Laden. By the way, in the real life, I do not think States should wage war as soon as they want to extend their borders, I do not favor hereditarian dictorships, I do not support neither the siege of cities nor the starvation of people who are - culturally speaking - strangers to my civilization, I even don't believe in the irreductable character of civilizations (I think Huntington is a dangerous perenialist non-thinker who might well be responsible for the contemporary international disorder as his theory is self-realizing...).

But since I can already wage war when I want in Civ, since I can already manipulate poor foreign diplomats in Civ, since I can already, in Civ, make people die under my bloody iron swords or my nuclear ICBMs, I ask for the right, as well,

to implement terrorist devices in my opponents' cities

'cause that'll be fun !

[GAZ082]

I dont care. Terrorism is kinda microwar, and is out the scope of CIV where the armies rule.

[Modo44]

Well, terrotism on its own is a bit small for the scope of Civ. But I do think that general guerilla activity should be implemented somehow.

This was buggy in Civ3, as the AI could not handle units with Hidden Nationality well. Units like Guerilla would be very fun to play with if they had this flag. Even more so if there was an expensive version that could do paradrops. If you want to call them terrorists, be my guest. Special Forces is another name, used by the "good" guys...

As to bombing attacks and more target-related activity, I prefer the open way of sending a couple of Cruise Missiles over. Come to think of it, if you would give missiles the ability to target specific buildings and/or units, the effect would be just as much terror as from terrorists. Love the double "r".

[Gen. Atkinson]

I wholeheartedly support the use of terrorist weapons in Civ. Wiping out cities with nukes, or eco-terrorists burning down enemy nuclear plants and factories.
And I would like to poison my enemy's water supply again, maybe cause some enemy units defect to my side.
I would also like a Brazilian Super Model, but life isn't like that.

[curtsibling]

A game for mass consumption cannot delve too deeply into issues where it might scare off potential players or gain bad press. Terrorism can be abstracted into general warfare.

Sneaking a unit into enemy territory and pillaging, could be seen as a terror attack...The game just doesn't call it as such.

[Kassiopeia]

A game company voluntarily not having something controversial in their games is not censorship. I don't think I'm going to miss the "terrorist" options too much, but I think it's a symptom of our times and I certainly don't like it.

Besides, I think a hijacking of terms has happened here - because these actions are being labeled "terrorist", they are not in the game. If they were "indirect warfare" or "unconventional methods", nobody would bat an eyelid.

[Trifna]

Or I could say that I am in favour of implementing terrorism since it's part of real stuff which could have some impacts as a part of intelligence (or else);

Or I could say that it should not be implemented that fast for all the trouble in can bring.

Or I can say like Kassiopeia that there could be some "indirect warfare" or (automatic civil) "guerrillas" implemented. "Terrorism" is only the last brand name taken by a long bunch of tentatives to wreck havoc in a way or another; it's just that recent developments made of this type of warfare a special issue. So I'll go for unconventional banana throwing.

[Mace]

I think terrorism should be part of Civ4...it's part of the real world, after all. If it's dropped for PC reasons...that's bad bad bad. Spineless and unrealistic.

[GAZ082]

Partisans and stuff like that might be ok, in fact, they would rock!

[playshogi]

Blow up building? ---- OUT
Poison water supply? ------ OUT
Raze size 24 city? ---- IN

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by playshogi
Blow up building? ---- OUT
Poison water supply? ------ OUT
Raze size 24 city? ---- IN

That's the point ! What an enormous hypocrisis !

[Robert]

Originally posted by Mace
I think terrorism should be part of Civ4...it's part of the real world, after all. If it's dropped for PC reasons...that's bad bad bad. Spineless and unrealistic.

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

[Nikolai]

No ingame terrorism is no big deal. It's not important for the gameplay. Now, of course, it would be nice for realism, but again, not important since much of reality is not included. And it would possibly be hurting for Firaxis' PR, which I understand is a problem, although it's sad it's how it's like.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Mace
I think terrorism should be part of Civ4...it's part of the real world, after all. If it's dropped for PC reasons...that's bad bad bad. Spineless and unrealistic.

Leaders living for 6000 years is not in the real world, neither is an Islamic America.

We will just have to accept that this is a fun/megalomania game, and not a historical document.

[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.