Censorship on terrorism

[Chuckles]

BOOO! I thought the comment in the interview about C4 not supporting terrorism was a horrible example of whitewashing and self-cencorship.

[Mace]

It's a sign of the times. I bet if Civ4 was developed in the 1950's, there would be *NO* Communism in it...??

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by Mace
It's a sign of the times. I bet if Civ4 was developed in the 1950's, there would be *NO* Communism in it...??

And communism in Civ 1 & 2 was nothing but sovietism (everything which is on the left of Al Gore). You had thus a very interesting choice between von Hayek's liberal democracy and Staline's sweet regime.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Chuckles
BOOO! I thought the comment in the interview about C4 not supporting terrorism was a horrible example of whitewashing and self-cencorship.

OTOH C4 is extremly good for supporting terrorism...

[Nikolai]

[Tomasz]

Im for getting back espionage/terrorist missions into Civ4, for they give some new, unconventional way of doing things. Although if we would talk about non state sponsored terrorism, barabarians should fill that role, as they did in Civ 2.

I think that a state could also sponsor a barbarian uprisng in exchange for the assurence that they wont be the target of the rebellion or terrorist act in question.

Tomasz

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Tomasz
Im for getting back espionage/terrorist missions into Civ4, for they give some new, unconventional way of doing things. Although if we would talk about non state sponsored terrorism, barabarians should fill that role, as they did in Civ 2.

I think that a state could also sponsor a barbarian uprisng in exchange for the assurence that they wont be the target of the rebellion or terrorist act in question.

Tomasz

For Non-State sponsored terrorism, how about if a Civ has a city that is perticularly in the dumps for health/happyness, and barbarian warriors appear in that cities boundaries, with tech equivalent to whatever that Civ has researched.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by M. le Comte
That's right. Nothing happened on the world scale on the 9/11.

As someone who lives in NY and was here when it happened - catagorically NO. On the civ scale what did it do? It didn't even destroy a fraction of a population point. Whether it effected the US economically is something that you can argue back and forth, but I don't happen to think it had a huge impact on our economy. It was stagnant before, it was stagnant after.

What it did was give the leaders of the US the political capital to pursue a course of action they wanted to pursue anyways. And when has manipulation of the populous ever been modelled in Civ?

And if you included terrorism you'd have to include some sort of non-state entity (like late game barbarians) and that gets complicated quickly and unnecessarily.

All of you who are assuming that terrorism is being left out as a PC thing are barking up the wrong tree. Its being left out because on the civ scale it doesn't make sense, and implementing a framework to make it make sense would overcomplicate the game in a way that was more unfun than any fun you might get from using it.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Tomasz
I think that a state could also sponsor a barbarian uprisng in exchange for the assurence that they wont be the target of the rebellion or terrorist act in question.

Because that worked so well for us in Afghanistan...

[Changmai Beagle]

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

For some reason this just reminded me of "historical records" in GalaxyQuest. "Oh, those poor people" (in respect of the historical records for Gilligan's Island).

It's interesting to consider where the distinction between terrorism and "raiding" or "individual action", along the lines of American ifigures such as the Swamp Fox, Forrest, the James', John Brown, various Rangers (I'm thinking of the ones in Burma), and so on lies. Even TV icons like Zorro and the Rat Patrol were destroying enemy capability and morale.

[Kuciwalker]

I really dont' care.

[binTravkin]

Down with the Political Crap!
We want fun, not a chopped game!

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Down with the Political Crap!
We want fun, not a chopped game!

I don't see any contradiction between fun and realism.

If you don't want realism, may I suggest you to go and buy Warcraft or CTP (which games might be as well as civ very entertaining)

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
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

Then drop a nuke on it.

[Mace]

Originally posted by wrylachlan What it did was give the leaders of the US the political capital to pursue a course of action they wanted to pursue anyways.

How do you know that this was the course of action they wanted to pursue?

All of you who are assuming that terrorism is being left out as a PC thing are barking up the wrong tree. Its being left out because on the civ scale it doesn't make sense,

How do you know that's the reason it will be left out of Civ4?