Slavery and terrorism

Ok so slavery is in and terrorism is out as I understand it. Firaxis says it doesn't want to into a touchy subject like terrorism but slavery is ok? Sure terrorism is more of an up to date problem but neither is better than the other so why would they include one and not the other? I personally never used the pollute water supply or anything like that but if the A.I. did it would add a greater realism to the game and what not. Anyone else think its a bit ridiculous they would include slavery and not terrorism?

It's all about lowering the rating so it's more accesable to younger buyers who are more impressionable in order to turn them into long-time fans like you and I.

It's just business.

Businesses do not 'care' about their consumers, they only care that they come back.

-E

it's rediculous that they took out terrorism. To ignore it as an influential part of history is a blatant punch in the face of the intelligent consumers of Civ

Endureth said:

It's all about lowering the rating so it's more accesable to younger buyers who are more impressionable in order to turn them into long-time fans like you and I.

It's just business.

Businesses do not 'care' about their consumers, they only care that they come back.

-E

Click to expand...

Ithink that and making the game easily moddable allows for younger buyers and allows terrorism to be added by a long time fan

But they didn't include wooden shoes in the game, so some forms of terrorism will be hard to commit, unless they give us back our Sabots!

But I thought slavery is now one of the "Civics" options?

i wish terrorism was in, but if you take a close look at barbs than they are terrorists. they try to come in and distroy your imps and citys and workers. the only thing that i wish was that the barbs acually improved in techs and were able to settle in your territory so youd have to have a unit handy at all times.

Terrorism is not a concept which would fit into the scale of Civilization. It could have an impact if played at the scale of SimCity, but not if you are playing and ruling whole states.
In fact, it will be very hard to prove that terroristic acts ever had a significant influence on the world around, except maybe for 9/11 and the shooting of the Austrian heir to the throne in Sarajevo, 1914. And even for the later, there is nothing specific to terrorism, as assassinations took place all over the world, historically.

Personally, I have admit that most of the supporters of the idea of terrorism seem to be attracted by the "coolness" of submitting such an act.
I would very much like to know what was going to happen if the game came up with the following message:
"The terrorists of [insert name] have submitted a terroristic act. Your car has blown up.
Your score: [player name] the weak.
Play again? Y/N"

Slavery on the other hand HAD major impacts in history. It changed the population of whole areas, and wars were fought over it.
Nevertheless, to link the hurrying of improvements to it by sacrificing of "slaves" doesn't seem very convincing, either. Perhaps one can mod it towards more realism.

Anyway, slavery makes much more sense at the scale of Civ than terrorism.

Just let some civs be able to make terrorists in modern era, make them invisible and without civ, and call them terrorists and make your own spec. ops who can see invisible units to track them down and there you have, the hunt can begin

The fact that they are invisible and have no civ makes fighting them a real pain in the ass and gives you the realistic frustration these ***** can give to people

I did it like this in my scenario

What about the Sies like in Civ 2? Wouldn't that suffice? make them invisible, and stealth attacking and away you go...

Hate to dispute you, Commander Bello, but though non-State backed terrorism has had only a little impact on Global Affairs, I would have to say that such State-based acts of Terrorism (called Covert Actions or Unconventional Warfare) has been very influential. US intervention behind terrorist organisations like the Contras and UNITA caused MASSIVE upheavals in their respective countries, as did US sabotage of the Chilean economy prior to Pinochet coming to power. Also, like it or not, both the Basques and the IRA have had huge impacts on their 'parent' nations. Also, let us not forget the impact of partisan and resistance attacks in Nazi Occupied Europe, or Zionist terrorists forcing Britain's hand on the issue of ending their Mandate in Palestine-or the later success of PLO and Hamas in getting the Palestinian cause on the international agenda.
What you need to remember Bello is that, though INDIVIDUAL acts of terror against single targets might have little to no impact on a Civilization scale game-this game deals with 'Improvements' that in fact represent whole sectors of the economy (like a factory, for instance), and a turn represents a minimum of a year. At these time and representation scales, state-based (and even some non-state based) terrorism CAN be accurately reflected within the game-either as part of Domestic Intelligence operations or via unit-based attacks-or perhaps even BOTH!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

However, I think the point is that state based Terrorism can be represented through the Espionage screen (sabotage, or more appropriately propaganda, which makes the enemy people unhappy)

Non-state base terrorism can be represented through resisters, culture flips, non production during Anarchy ,and riots.


A key aspect in terrorism should be its impact on Attitude (after all the point is not so much physically hurting your opponent as psychologically)...an increase in War Weariness in fighting some suppressed territory, etc.

I'm currently Really disappointed that they chose the economic route to a happiness penalty because it keeps all aspects of the game too highly interchangable

However, I think that terrorism will be in Civ 4, just like it was in Civ3, under another name. Which is quite sensible, ESPECIALLY as religions are going in under their own name.

Terrorism can also be some sort of pre-civil war thing you have to handle, in some cas (FLQ).

sgrig said:

But I thought slavery is now one of the "Civics" options?

Click to expand...

it is (10 chars)

mastertyguy said:

Terrorism can also be some sort of pre-civil war thing you have to handle, in some cas (FLQ).

Click to expand...

I agree. Don't forget guys that while terrorist may be one nations bane, they're another nation's freedom fighters. The Boston Tea Party could have been considered acts of terrorism by British colonies towards England itself had media been so widely accesable back then.

-E

Aussie_Lurker said:

Hate to dispute you, Commander Bello, ...

Click to expand...

No problem, Aussie.
Nevertheless, I don't agree with you, either

In fact, I think the examples mentioned by you just proof my theory! At first, covert actions may terrorize the enemy, but per definition they are not terrorism (what doesn't make the one better or worse than the other).
They are either military actions or somewhere below that threshold, in any way, at the scale of Civ they will be found in the military part or at espionage.

The Basques are fighting for autonomy (or what they think, autonomy would be) since decades. Did they succedd? No.
The IRA has fought for decades for something, almost nobody remembers anymore. We do remember their terrorism, o.k. But, did they succeed? No.
In the 70ies, we had quite some terrorists in Europe, trying to bomb the European nations into a "socialistic utopia". Did they succeed? No.
And so on, and so on....

I don't say that terroristic acts don't have any impact at all. My prayers are with all people who have experienced harm by terrorists.

Nevertheless, at the scale of Civ, terroristic acts just can't be displayed. The same stands true for spies and missionaries, btw.
Those groups and their impact are just so small that they don't qualify for a unit.

Resister on the other hand have an impact, and they are many. Therefore, we found them in Civ3 for good reason - although I could have thought of other ways of implementing them and their actions.

"Nevertheless, at the scale of Civ, terroristic acts just can't be displayed. The same stands true for spies and missionaries, btw.
Those groups and their impact are just so small that they don't qualify for a unit. "

Ok, but I also agree with Aussia Lurker and think terrorism could be represented. The serbian bombing of the crown prince of austria was an act of terrorism, niether state sanctioned or supported. That set off world war 1. Theres an example of terrorism effecting entire civilizations.

So I think it could be modeled effectively without a totally random thing. Like if country A's people hate country B's people there would be a greater chance of terrorism on thier part.

I think if terrorism was in, it wouldnt be able to have a significiant effect with most players. It would with me though, I like to look at my cities occasionally, and build them up nicely-if saw that one of my beautifull creations had a museum with half the West wall blown across the City, I'd seek revenge.

i dont care about hurting people by implimenting terrorism into a game.... its a game..... to bad if you dont like it... know what i mean? you cant deny history you know...

anyway i think of terrorism as being the result of certain actions... be it occupying but not rebuilding. insulting other religions to a high degree. what would happen would be a set number of events that are selected.... from the bombing of a building. murder of citizens and so on. maybe have police forces in friendly terrortory prevent attacks