Censorship on terrorism

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Mace

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

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

IF you want me to put a giant THIS IS MY OPINION at the start of every post so that your literal minded panties wont get all in a bunch, you're **** out of luck.

My opinion on the US goverments intentions is based on mounds of policy papers coming out of right wing think-tanks since the early 80s, think-tanks with known connections to the current US regime. Call it tin foil hat stuff. Fine. I don't really care. There's enough circumstantial evidence there to make me more than a little suspicious of Herr Bush. If you choose not to be suspicious - fine.

And my opinion on Firaxis is based on thier own statements in regards to streamlining the game and getting rid of unfun elements. IMHO terrorism as previously modelled in CIV was unfun, mainly because it felt out of scale with the rest of the game. Seems like a valid reason to disclude to me.

Now if you have a further point of discussion that doesn't start with "How do you know..." I'm all ears.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by curtsibling


Then drop a nuke on it.

Yeah, that might do the trick

[Mace]

Originally posted by wrylachlan Now if you have a further point of discussion that doesn't start with "How do you know..." I'm all ears.

Yikes. It's just a game. Actually, I'll have no discussion at all, if it's going to be like that.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think a good point is made when people refer to a 'HIJACKING' of terminology.
Certain types of unit and non-unit based 'sabotage' can be great in the game-if you want to really hurt a potential rival WITHOUT neccessarily going to war with them. This is especially true if you are SMALLER than your opponent.
Rather than call it Terrorism, though, it would be best to refer to it as 'Sabotage', if its done as part of a Covert Operation, or unconventional warfare if it is done with a unit-like a partisan or guerilla.
Given how much these tactics HAVE been used historically-with mixed results-I don't see why they can't be in Civ4-as long as gameplay balance is properly maintained!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
I think a good point is made when people refer to a 'HIJACKING' of terminology.
Certain types of unit and non-unit based 'sabotage' can be great in the game-if you want to really hurt a potential rival WITHOUT neccessarily going to war with them. This is especially true if you are SMALLER than your opponent.
Rather than call it Terrorism, though, it would be best to refer to it as 'Sabotage', if its done as part of a Covert Operation, or unconventional warfare if it is done with a unit-like a partisan or guerilla.
Given how much these tactics HAVE been used historically-with mixed results-I don't see why they can't be in Civ4-as long as gameplay balance is properly maintained!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Covert Ops has indeed been around for many many years. This is what it´s really about, sneaking around your enemys territory inflicting damage to valuable resources and even kidnapping leaders...

[curtsibling]

When the UK performed covert ops in the 3rd Reich in WW2, the Germans called it terrorist action.

It all depends on what side of the coin the palyer is on...

[Zoid]

True, one mans freedom fighters are another mans terrorists. Take the talibans for example, good sound freedom fighters when they fought against the evil commies. But when they turned to bite the hand that fed them they´re instantly labeled terrorists...

[MarkG]

in favor, as long as it is balanced...

if there is no terrorism, then there shouldnt be any nuclear weapons, any big missiles, etc....

[MrFun]

Given the fact that Civ IV will provide much more modding capability and power into the hands of its players, where are the complaints coming from?

We will have an opportunity to mod into whatever form of terrorism we would like to have in Civ IV once we start modding.

[Solver]

Then again, terrorism kind of is too small for the Civ scale. If you're controlling a country with aircraft carriers, tanks and nuclear missiles, then acts which kill 20 people are not to that scale. What they should have is espionage options that are also on the proper scale - inciting revolutions, sabotage, etc. Then again, poison water supply was good.

What could be a good implementation of terrorism would be something like Barbs, only modern. And more advanced. Not some small camps, but more like insurgent cities that can cause terror activity - reduce the pop in one of your cities or somesuch.

[Addled Platypus]

so when one uses espionage to catch techs, involt riots, destroy
buildings....

its not terroism,.... just good game play

terroism=espionage its all the same

[Solver]

Terrorism is not espionage. Terrorism is typically carried out by groups with far less power than a single country. In the game, it makes sense if you can bomb an enemy city from the air. It's a large scale military action. But planting a bomb somewhere in the city that kills 20 people or destroys a single building is too small scale for the purposes of Civ. One pop point represents 10k people, and in Civ, decreasing a city pop by one isn't a big event.

[Johivin]

Here's an Idea.

Seeing as you can go into other people's cities by use of the missionaries. Why not continue the advancement of 'barbarians' throughout the game from:

'Barbarians' to 'Pirate' to 'Terrorist'.

There are always tiny islands in the ocean that people don't build on.

Have a unit (like the missionary, but call it whatever) that can hire them in an almost mercenary style. You pay, but the computer still controls their actions. Mercenaries have always been a part of war, so let the barbarian camps act like them. Barbarians, Pirates, and Terrorists have always acted outside of a country's control.

What do ya'll think?

Johivin Ryson

[Reader81]

Barbarians are true freedom and live whatever they please in land of wildness.

Pirate are looking for to steal gold or item from one other to make life better on sea.

Terrorist are anit-goverment or anit-other goverment, they dont like way of goverment work or think goverment are lie, use on thier people, ect..

So they all are not same. at least for me way I think.

[Xorbon]

Having a unit represent terrorists would be okay. I think it would be cool to be able to fund barbarian guerillas. The more happy/content the target civ, the more expensive the funding would be.

I would also like to see 'semi-'random events related to terrorism. A civ with a lot of unhappy foreign citizens would have a chance that a terrorist group could start up. Once started-up, the terrorist group would have a chance of causing some sort of 'damage' to a random city. Damage could include economic loss, loss of gold, production loss, destruction of an improvement, or (rarely) population loss. Foreign civs could try to fund terrorism in a target civ in order to increase the odds of a group forming or of an existing group making a successful attack. To counter terrorist attacks or even destroy a group, you'd have to have some sort of anti-terrorism or counter-intelligence (using spies?).

Anyway, there a snowball's chance in hell any such ideas would make it into Civ IV. I just needed to vent my ideas.