Ethnic cleansing in Civ 4, also terrorism

[ranger999]

I'm not sure if this is a rant or a lament.

Perhaps a better term for ethnic cleansing would be mass population transfer? Are we still going to be able to build "workers" (nice euphemism) in captured cities & disband them, or are the incentives/disincentives of this approach reworked under Civ 4? Or can we just wave our hands and "disband" a city? Given that they're explicitly modeling slavery in Civ 4 I wonder how they will deal with its close brother (in Civ terms) of ethnic cleansing. Sure you can argue that you are dispersing the population represented by units or city pop elsewhere into your population to prevent cultural foci of dissension by minorities in your ever expanding empire, but let's call a spade a spade. Where do those worker units go when you "disband" them? (Note: I am NOT advocating this in real life! But I won't deny its great appeal in a game....)

I must also object to the lack of asymmetric warfare, oops I mean terrorism, but as an American I understand that the game may get negative publicity in my country if it is felt to encourage terrorist actions. Why is this worse than ordering a strategic (not tactical) nuclear strike on enemy cities full of civilians? It's stupid to disallow tac nukes to be smuggled in by terrorists but then celebrate the old Civ tradition of massive strategic nuclear strikes on your opponent. I guess my rant is that this queasiness about terrorism seems superficial, but I understand the need to fluff the American public. I suppose there might even be a real risk of a boycott. They might get angry if this game had terrorist options, but they will not object as their children nuke early & nuke often, slaughtering thousands of (digital) non-combatants, while eagerly disbanding workers of "troublesome" nations.

I have nuked before & I shall nuke again, in the many virtual worlds of Civ! I haven't yet played the Ottomans and built workers of Armenian & other pro-Entente nationalities during WW1 & then led them into the desert where I "disbanded" them so that they quit disrupting my cities...but I can't promise I won't if the game gets tough. I expect posters on this board to understand this is just a game and not get bent out of shape, but the publishers seem unduly sensitive about these sorts of things. I don't think anyone has been inspired to evil deeds by Civ, have they? (heh, I can see a newsline from the Onion: SADDAM HUSSEIN PRACTICED ARABIZATION OF KIRKUK BY PLAYING CIVILIZATION; WAS DISAPPOINTED BY LIMITED EFFECTS OF POISONING CITY WATER)

 

[Communisto]

I AGREEEEEE!!! you took the words straight out of my mouth

 

[AlmightyBob]

I believe the civ 2 spy options that would constitute terrorism would be 'plant nuclear device' and 'poison water supply'. I believe they were removed from the game not due to politically correct reasons as you suggest, but for the same reasons that civil wars were removed from the game. While it is fun to plant a nuclear device in an enemy's city, when an enemy does it to you it is decidingly not fun.

Like it or not most players do not want this option and therefor all players must deal. If cIV is as modable as they suggest maybe this will become an option.

 

[Lief Ericson]

My favorite way of killing off the angry masses I recently conquered in Civ3 is turning the entire city into tax collecters until they starve down to one or two people. Not only does it solve the whole "rebellion" problem, but it also makes me some money.

Though, I'm sure they would never add anything like ethnic cleansing into Civ3. And if they did, they'd never use the phrase "ethnic cleansing." Probably explain it as "forced relocation."

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It really is ALL about TERMINOLOGY. If you called Ethnic Cleansing (which is, itself, a more 'wholesome' euphemism for Genocide) mass relocation, or forced labour, then it probably would be easier to stomach. Same with terrorism. Just call it assymetric or unconventional warfare-or even sabotage-and it would be far more palatable.
As for it not being fun if it happens to you-well a good player tries to make sure it DOESN'T happen to them. If it does, well you will just have to recover in the same way as you would have to recover from a conventional nuclear blast or lost combat!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[warpstorm]

They had ethnic cleansing (under a different name) under the fascism government of C3C (do you really think they immigrated out?).

 

[Graadiapolistan]

Well, in the manuel for civ3, it says when you hurry production in a despotism, the people are overworked and move out.

In the actual game the advisor says,"this will cost the lives of x citizens"

HEHEHE, I bet the civ people will find a way to put in "ethnic cleansing" and if they can't modders can! This is why they claim that civ4 is more moddable then civ3.

So reloice, just mod in what you want!

 

[ranger999]

My objection was to the designers stating that there would be no terrorism-related options in Civ 4. What is terrorism in game terms? If I launch cruise missiles at a city and blow up two large, adjacent commercial buildings, is that better than several guys hijacking commercial airplanes and flying them into buildings? (We all know, of course, about late WW2 german/japanese kamikaze designs of airplanes that were human-piloted one-way suicide planes with non-detachable explosive payloads, the ancestor of BOTH these operations.) The designers have not been specific whether we will have sabotage options, but since they're generic & bland I expect there will still be some ability to interfere with current production--not sure about blowing up buildings. But you're right, "abstractly modeled population point transfer" (hmm) will likely remain part of Civ. That makes me think, in the style of the great parody newspaper The Onion...


**********************************************

GAMERS RELIEVED AT DISAPPEARANCE OF TERRORISM FROM CIVILIZATION COMPUTER GAME SERIES

Gamers everywhere expressed relief upon hearing that terrorism-related game options would be absent from Civilization IV, the 4th installment of the best-selling computer game series. The announcement quelled fears by some that controversy over implied endorsements of the World Trade Center and the Madrid train bombings would overshadow a successful continuation of the Civilization game franchise.

"I was relieved when I heard that there would be no terrorism in Civ 4," said Gill Bates, an avid Seattle gamer who has played every installment of Civilization since the original over a decade ago. "It would have been outrageous that a company would market an entertainment product that encourages such reprehensible, barbaric conduct by game players in the post-9/11 world. We want a balanced simulation of human history, not atrocity pornography for the mentally disturbed." He also praised Civ 4's new inclusion of aspects of human history such as slavery. "I am gratified that Civilization has matured enough as a game to model this sordid chapter of human history. It is well known that some teenage female slaves were raped by their owners, and the resulting bastard children sold by the owners to increase their material wealth. Of course, because this was done widely throughout all places & times of slavery, including the antebellum South in America, the implied child rape & forced impregnation of the new slavery mechanic is much less unpleasant to the world audience than a few modern acts by deranged fanatics."

Adolf Reinhard Himmler, a Dresden-based gamer who states he is "three-time champion of the SimVL playoffs," also agrees with the removal of terrorism. "Terrorism is a cowardly, disgusting profession of the morally decrepit. Proper and correct Civilization play has never been about the use of terrorist acts. It is about the proper application of strategic principles in management of your economy, military and sociology. Conventional military actions, followed by the resettlement and population transfer 'nach Osten' of certain ethnic groups that share an inherently hostile worldview to one's civilization is the bread & butter of Civilization. Fortunately, Civilization continues the tradition of allowing me to fight against certain bloodsucking races that have enriched themselves through 4000 years of usury & moneylending as parasites on the proper German Volk. I can use state-sponsored culture & propraganda, diplomacy, trade embargoes, military action, enslavement, expulsion from ancestral homelands, deliberate famine, and outright extermination. But to include terrorism--that might give evil-minded people ideas." When asked what his present plans were, Mr. Himmler stated "I am much more concerned about the fact that disbanding a worker only yields two shields. Did you know you can make lots of lampshades and socks from human skin & hair? I guess I'll have to mod the game when it comes out."

Sir John Pleb of London also endorsed this announcement. "I admit I am indifferent to terrorism as a game mechanic, as frankly it wasn't that effective in earlier Civilization games, except for smuggling nuclear devices. But even that last option can be accomplished by other means in the game, so it doesn't bother me in the least that it was removed. Killing over 3000 people with a suicide strike in a nation of 280+ million is peanuts, if you must know. Over 19000 British soldiers were killed in the first day of the Battle of the Somme in July 1916 out of nearly 60000 total British casulaties, and honestly, I've fought battles in Civ that made even the Somme look like nothing more than a soccer hooligan brawl."

Civilization IV is expected to be released in the second half of 2005.


********************************************************
Disclaimer: this article is not meant to condone terrorism, nor the playing of SimVL (an extermination camp simulator game in the 8-bit computer era), nor child rape. But if you didn't realize that, playing Civ may be....dangerous for you.

Edit: made the 'article' snarkier, and corrected a translation error.

 

[Dearmad]

Then stop voting republican people... fearmongering.









-snicker-

 

[Parabellum]

Remember that we call "terrorism" to the brutal actions commited by someone, or a little group; and we call "acts of war" to the action commited by a state. The difference is just the "person" who do it.

What means war ? "Use what you know to destroy the others." The technique you use is not the point, just the objetive is important.
I´m a defender of the terrorism JUST as a mechanical of the game. It´s another way to "hit" the enemy. Just this. And everyone who is seeing more than it is, they are just going too far from the spirit of a GAME.
WE ARE PLAYING AS A STATE, NOT A PERSON, so we make acts of war aganist ANOTHER STATES, not people.
I´m a defender to recover the sabotage of constructions of wonders of the world, to deploy the actual pool of shields of the city and to destroy the buildings in the city (cathedrals, temples, etc...) as ACTS OF WAR.

If someone make an act of war I recomend to the CIV IV builders:
a) Put a reinforcement on the reputation hits when it is done, declare war easily.
b) Lower the chances to do it when the civ goes beyond Industrial, and again at Modern age, due to the reinforcement of the security.
c) or just make sure to give the game the way to avoid the poisoning and the sabotaging (like the hospital, for example for the poisoning, and the police station in the second) and it will be OK. Same as you give the ICBM protection for the nuclear weapons[/U]
It´s cinical to make a defense aganist ICBM and not see what the other acts can be the same way "avoided" by something in the game that is present at the moment of the act of war/sabotage.
I think that there are just a few people who will be offended if we put terrorism/tactical "behind scene" war/CIA missions/spionage/ sabotage in the game. The builders of the game will have to see wich is the best way to put it in the game, polite enough, smooth enough, not to offend someone.

Or THE MODDERS WILL DO....

 

[Virote_Considon]

You know, the thing that Really gets on my nerves, is that the whole world is dtrying to run away from terrorism, instead of confrounting it head first, and it's only when there's no-where else to run, as a country has become so paranoid and de-moralised, that a chain of wars will start *cough*9/11-Afghanistan-Iraq-(Iran)? *cough*

It reminds me of the great witch hunts of the medieval/early industrial periods that were just wild goose chases. It's allways TERRORIST!!! BURN HIM!!! HE'S GOT A BOMB!!! "but it's a CD player >.>"

And, if that's not enough, they're letting some Tyrants who they fear get away with brutal murder in the millions, whilst attacking less-feared 'Terrorist' states for doing the EXACT same thing.

Well, I hope someone does make a mod with terrorism in it. A darn good one at that too.

I wouldn't be suprissed if *this post has been stricken from the records* appears on my post, too, as that's just how paranoid the world is becoming!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well as the Onion post notes, terrorism in physical terms (ie sabotage, population loss) is not detectable on the Civ scale (unless you include WMD options, ie poisoning water supply..which they could make interesting with introducing an actual spreading 'poison' or plant nuclear weapon).

What state sponsored terrorism really is in a Civ game is an attitude affector, a way of increasing Unhappiness in the target civ (unhappiness here representing the fear that terrorism provides). Of course to be realistic that fear could also increase support for a war against the perpetrator...but if the fear was too high, then the people might figure peace was better