gueirila warfare/terroism

[Traitorfish]

'Terrorism' is a coined Bush word that Americans only just discovered in the dictionary in the past 6 years. Espionage is the correct term. And im all for poisoning water supply to decrease population, and sabbotage to destroy factories and buildings.

How is terrorism an invention of Bush? Don't know about you, but we've had terrorism for decades- heard of the IRA, perhaps? The USA called Timonthy McVeigh a "terrorist" and that was years before 9/11. I don't like Bush either, but don't make stuff up.
You're confusing three entirely seperate things:
Espionage refers to covert operation with the purpose of gathering intelligence.
Sabotage refers to the destruction or damaging of facilities or property.
Terrorism refers to using violence on civilian targets to achieve a physiological effect on your enemy.

Terrorism is a real, defined thing with a long history- Che Guevara devoted part of his 1961 book Guerrilla Warfare to describing the differences between terrorism and sabotage, so it's hardly an example of Neoconservative Newspeak.

 

[El Koeno]

I actually don't think partisans should be able to go toe-to-toe with regular units.

I agree. Which is why I would like them to be able to "hide". They wouldn't be completely invisible, like a spy is, but they would have a certain chance of being detected. While undetected, they can pillage improvements, and maybe perform ambushes (don't know how, but it sounds cool). As soon as they're detected, they would be a prey for the opposing military.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would like both land and sea hidden nationality units, but also a chance that their nationality could be discovered, probably leading to some major counterstrikes. There should be a risk involved in sponsoring terrorism.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Hello, this more tasteless than adding a jewish civilization and Hitler in the same expanision pact. Hmmm... terrorism, I think you should all either burn in hell, or if you don't believe in it just get burnt alive for even thinking of such tastless and inconciderate joke of a thread as this. I mean really, in only the dirst world we have lost thousands of people in terror attacks in the last few years. In the rest of the world, espessialy africa and the middle-east thousands of people are killed yearly by it. You inconciderate . .. .. .. .. ..

i wonder why Mao, Stalin, Genghis Khan, the Vikings, and the Spanish conquistadores are in the game...

Terrorism is a real, defined thing with a long history- Che Guevara devoted part of his 1961 book Guerrilla Warfare to describing the differences between terrorism and sabotage, so it's hardly an example of Neoconservative Newspeak.

some historians actually use the term "terrorism" in way way past history, like when Genghis Khan swept over Eurasia killing millions. i suppose it can be used to describe any war strategies/tactics involving "terrorizing" people.


back to the topic... since the expansion is supposedly supposed to focus on "Beyond the Sword" era, guerillas and similar units would, and should be an addition.

perhaps there should be an option in the game, similar to the "Complete Kill" option (kill all enemy units not just cities), except that the enemy cuold spawn random, "lower-quality" conscript untis.

 

[Panda]

Worldwide, more people die in traffic accidents than through terrorism. Hence, we should remove all roads from Civ!

On a more serious note, I found this

land hidden nationality units, but also a chance that their nationality could be discovered, probably leading to some major counterstrikes. There should be a risk involved in sponsoring terrorism.

to be close to my ideas what guerrilla warfare could be like in Civ. However, I wouldn't mind if it was omitted altogether from BTS, as long as we get a decent espionage system.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Terrorism could be in, but only in a very controlled form. You could create a new unit called "terrorist," but it would only be available to governments running very repressive civics--despotism, maybe. That means you could undertake missions against your enemies only if it is clear your state is a very totalitarian one. Naturally, there should be a chance of detection, which would cause negative attitude modifiers. Enough of these might trigger a war.

Having said that, I suspect the espionage system in BtS basically does all this anyway, so it would be kind of redundant unless you created a special, new mission just for terrorism.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

One of the main differences is that espionage units are loyal soldiers of their governments, while terrorists are usually disgruntled civilians.

Perhaps terrorists should be barbarian units, not controlled by their creators/sponsors but not nearly as hostile towards them as towards there enemies. This could add the risk that the terrorists could get out of hand.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

What about state-sponsored terrorism?

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

How is terrorism an invention of Bush? Don't know about you, but we've had terrorism for decades- heard of the IRA, perhaps? The USA called Timonthy McVeigh a "terrorist" and that was years before 9/11. I don't like Bush either, but don't make stuff up.
You're confusing three entirely seperate things:
Espionage refers to covert operation with the purpose of gathering intelligence.
Sabotage refers to the destruction or damaging of facilities or property.
Terrorism refers to using violence on civilian targets to achieve a physiological effect on your enemy.

Terrorism is a real, defined thing with a long history- Che Guevara devoted part of his 1961 book Guerrilla Warfare to describing the differences between terrorism and sabotage, so it's hardly an example of Neoconservative Newspeak.

QFT

That's a great post

 

[Grimz101]

Terrorism could be in, but only in a very controlled form. You could create a new unit called "terrorist," but it would only be available to governments running very repressive civics--despotism, maybe. That means you could undertake missions against your enemies only if it is clear your state is a very totalitarian one. Naturally, there should be a chance of detection, which would cause negative attitude modifiers. Enough of these might trigger a war.

Having said that, I suspect the espionage system in BtS basically does all this anyway, so it would be kind of redundant unless you created a special, new mission just for terrorism.

Why does the goverment have to be repressive? America, Britain both are democratic, and yet both have been involved of state sponsered terrorisum, just think of cuba for instance.. hell America even trainned terrorists to try and invade cuba.. and then there is the like 639 attempts to kill a certain leader

 

[Kaiser Mac Cleg]

I'd like to see guerrilla warfare in the game. You could have units invisible to your enemies under certain condition - when they are on a forest tile, perhaps? And use them to pillage improvements and harass enemy armies before retreating. I'm not quite sure how terrorism would work though, and I don't think Firaxis would include it because, no matter what we think, someone will complain to them.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Why does the goverment have to be repressive? America, Britain both are democratic, and yet both have been involved of state sponsered terrorisum, just think of cuba for instance.. hell America even trainned terrorists to try and invade cuba.. and then there is the like 639 attempts to kill a certain leader

Comments like that are exactly why you will never see terrorism in the game. Assassination /= terrorism. Espionage or sabotage maybe, but not terrorism. The standard definition of terrorism is disputed by certain groups of people , so it will never be in.

At any rate, like I said I expect most of this will already be in BtS' espionage system, so terrorism would be unnecessary unless you created an entirely new set of missions for it, e.g. "terrorize populace."

 

[Grimz101]

Comments like that are exactly why you will never see terrorism in the game. Assassination /= terrorism. Espionage or sabotage maybe, but not terrorism. The standard definition of terrorism is disputed by certain groups of people , so it will never be in.

At any rate, like I said I expect most of this will already be in BtS' espionage system, so terrorism would be unnecessary unless you created an entirely new set of missions for it, e.g. "terrorize populace."

The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism. Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of state terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice condemning the United States Government for its "unlawful use of force." The claimants say the U.S. Government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism.
So wait the International Court of Justice is wrong then?


"terrorism has been permanently used by the U.S. as an instrument of its foreign policy against Cuba"
again like 639 attempts to assassinate Castro, and many attempts to destabilize cuba.

"the CIA had of operations against Cuba from the early Sixties to mid-Seventies, notably the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 in 1976 which killed all 73 people aboard and a series of attacks on tourist sites in the 1990s. For example, the FBI had multiple contacts with one of the bombers but provided him with a visa to the U.S. five days before the bombing, despite suspicions that he was engaged in terrorist activities."
Not really state sponsored but state encouraged .

If you really want examples of USA and state planned or sponsored terrorisum, just type in "Operation Northwoods" on google.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I knew it. I said to myself, sooner or later this is going to turn into a debate over terrorism.

I don't really want to debate this. I'll simply ask you to provide a definition of terrorism and sources to back this up. Not trying to be mean or anything, I am simply trying to understand.

Political assassinations are a bit iffy vis-a-vis terrorism; they could fall into the category of espionage. The last bit, as you admit, might be "not really state sponsored but state encouraged." And please, if you're going to bring up these issues, Castro is not a good example. That's about like criticizing the U.S. for trying to put a contract out on Osama bin Laden.

At any rate, if you object to my criteria, that's fine. You can make terrorism available to anybody then. But this is exactly why you will never see terrorists in the game--because it would create more controversy than putting in Hitler with a favorite religion of Judaism.

 

[Grimz101]

I knew it. I said to myself, sooner or later this is going to turn into a debate over terrorism.

I don't really want to debate this. I'll simply ask you to provide a definition of terrorism and sources to back this up. Not trying to be mean or anything, I am simply trying to understand.

Political assassinations are a bit iffy vis-a-vis terrorism; they could fall into the category of espionage. The last bit, as you admit, might be "not really state sponsored but state encouraged." And please, if you're going to bring up these issues, Castro is not a good example. That's about like criticizing the U.S. for trying to put a contract out on Osama bin Laden.

At any rate, if you object to my criteria, that's fine. You can make terrorism available to anybody then. But this is exactly why you will never see terrorists in the game--because it would create more controversy than putting in Hitler with a favorite religion of Judaism.

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or the perception or threat of imminent violence. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur, in 1999, counted over 100 definitions and concluded that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".


So plentiful definitions of terrorism, due to politicians, drug lords and people being repressed. but the main ones are to create fear or "terror", which American state sponsored terrorism does not fit into *Edit* It actually does, but does so through already established 'resistant groups'*Edit*
But wait whats what "for an idealogical goal" does actions of America fit into that category? Again i will point to Operation Northwoods and Cuba once again, as i doubt anyone will google it .

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

 

[El Koeno]

I think we should keep this focused more on the game. There's lots of definitions of terrorism, and it's not very useful debating which is the best one I think. The question isn't whether the US government is a terrorist organization. The question here is should terrorism be in the game?

If you put it like: "Should there be an Al'Qaeda in the game?" I say no. Put in another way, like: "Should you be able to do damage to your opponent's economy, using subterfuge and no official army (e.g. using the espionage slider)": Yes, I think so. No need in labeling that as terrorism though.

 

[Grimz101]

In the end we should have Guerilla warefare, and secondly have terrorism but call it Low intensity warfare. Why? Because of one of my favourite quotes .
The U.S. is officially committed to what is called "low-intensity warfare...If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same

In end, i totally support Guerilla warefare/terrorism(*cough low-intensity conflict) being in the game, because as said before more people die from road accidents then terrorism, and in America more people have died from crip set vrs bloodset violence then from extremists in the late 90s and early 2000s

 

[Winston Hughes]

If there was to be terrorism in Civ, then I would say there are three different forms it could take, corresponding to three relatively uncontroversial uses of the term in RL.

(1) Terrorism as Provocation - the use of some kind of attack on a civ's cities or infrastructure with the intention of provoking them to go to war (either with the state responsible for the attack or with a third party who is framed for the attack by the true perpetrator).

(2) Terrorism as Psychological Warfare - the use of attacks to destabilise a civ, producing unhappiness/WW, perhaps with the intention of provoking a civil war, getting the civ to change its religion/civics or to withdraw from a war in which it is already engaged.

(3) Terrorism as Asymmetric Warfare - the use of attacks to slow, disrupt and undermine a conventional military campaign, and to impose costs on the target civ which might lead them to sue for peace earlier (and to accept less demanding terms) than otherwise.

It's debatable whether #3 really counts as terrorism; maybe guerilla warfare and sabotage are more accurate terms, although inspiring terror has been a popular way of trying to force a state to the negotiating table (how effective is another question). For all that, though, there seems little reason to have a separate terrorist unit or screen/options; it would be more straightforward to lump it all together under spies/espionage.

 

[Grimz101]

If there was to be terrorism in Civ, then I would say there are three different forms it could take, corresponding to three relatively uncontroversial uses of the term in RL.

(1) Terrorism as Provocation - the use of some kind of attack on a civ's cities or infrastructure with the intention of provoking them to go to war (either with the state responsible for the attack or with a third party who is framed for the attack by the true perpetrator).

(2) Terrorism as Psychological Warfare - the use of attacks to destabilise a civ, producing unhappiness/WW, perhaps with the intention of provoking a civil war, getting the civ to change its religion/civics or to withdraw from a war in which it is already engaged.

(3) Terrorism as Asymmetric Warfare - the use of attacks to slow, disrupt and undermine a conventional military campaign, and to impose costs on the target civ which might lead them to sue for peace earlier (and to accept less demanding terms) than otherwise.

It's debatable whether #3 really counts as terrorism; maybe guerilla warfare and sabotage are more accurate terms, although inspiring terror has been a popular way of trying to force a state to the negotiating table (how effective is another question). For all that, though, there seems little reason to have a separate terrorist unit or screen/options; it would be more straightforward to lump it all together under spies/espionage.

All good reasons, and i support them as they sound thought out and a good idea. I though would implement a fourth way in addition so if i was Country A, and i wanted to goto War with Country B, i could commit terrorist attacks on my own country, and then frame Country B for the attacks, meaning that I could declare war on Country B without diplomatic negatives from other civilizations. If there is a civilization that has high espionage levels on me, and they are between the levels of hating me and slightly liking me, there is a % chance they will find out and tell everyone, giving me a huge -diplomatic modifier with everyone, for 'destabilizing world peace' if a civilization that loves me though and has high espionage on me, since they love me they wont tell everyone . This would be a fun and risky way of conflict in the Modern era.
And i know this sounds reministant of what a certain country is accused of doing, to invade a certain country, in a certain recent time, but i am not trying to prove they are 'evil', but trying to get this implemented in the game, because i could just imagine how fun it would be to commit, fun to catch a civilization out ingame, and maybe blackmail them about it, and fun to watch Greyfox and others do it in succession games!

 

[cybrxkhan]

All good reasons, and i support them as they sound thought out and a good idea. I though would just implement a way that so if i was Country A, and i wanted to goto War with Country B, i could commit terrorist attacks on my own country, and then frame Country B for the attacks, meaning that I could declare war on Country B without diplomatic negatives from other civilizations. If there is a civilization that has high espionage levels on me, and they are between the levels of hating me and slightly liking me, there is a % chance they will find out and tell everyone, giving me a huge -diplomatic modifier with everyone, for 'destabilizing world peace' if a civilization that loves me though and has high espionage on me, since they love me they wont tell everyone . This would be a fun and risky way of conflict in the Modern era.

sounds a bit complicated, perhaps for the game, but sounds very very very good. sounds like a conspiracy to me...