Helping Warmongers

[gberetfr]

What would you think of the following ideas :

- An attack on a city shall reduce the tourism ouput of this city for a few turns (gradually coming back to normal). If many and regular attacks, tourism can go to 0.

So you can imagine bombarding a city just to make the tourists flee and win some time for your Domination victory.

- And on top of that creation of : special-ops unit

Unlocked by completing honor tree, available after researching gunpowder (or something like that)

Invisible unit that can perform sneak attack on a city (consumed after attack of course...) and therefore reduce drastically tourism output. May also be used vs CS to bully them so as not to vote like their ally wants.

Countered by : Spys, police stations, CIA wonder, ... to be seen

Special ability, unlocked somewhere in the piety tree :
- Faith commando : can purchase special-ops with faith, special-op is 50% stronger but can only attack cities from a different religion

Only this would already be very cool (imho), rebuffing at the same time honor tree which needs it (and also the piety one).

And after you can imagine a lot of things :

- Special building : Mausoleum of GP X, Sacrificing a GP named X in your city allows you to build this. Gives bonus to your faith commando trained there (increased tourism loss, reduced chances of being catched,...)
- Ideology tenets for increasing special-ops power in the autocracy tree, helping to defend in freedom

And so on... What do you think ? Personnaly I would love to see that. I've always wanted special-ops/commandos in Civ, and now with the tourism it sounds just about right to add this.

 

[otaman1]

No. With terrorists, the game'll get banned. Dunno how many times I have to say this.

 

[gberetfr]

No. With terrorists, the game'll get banned. Dunno how many times I have to say this.

I'm sure you've given your arguments somewhere (can post a link to it if you don't want do tell them again, I did not have the pleasure to see it), and I believe they are strong, especially in the US where the subject is sensitive (I don't see that much of a problem elsewhere). BUT :

- In Civ you can already kill a lot of people, raze cities, nuke entire civilizations, conduct genocides, backstab your allies, manipulate into going to war,... What's some little terrorist on top of that.
- Some games already exist where there is terrorist, Counter-Strike for example where you can actually be a terrorist and kill soldiers. And to my knowledge it sells everywhere, even in the US.

So I won't be as pessimistic as you are and in the case where it seems that it will create too much problem with our american authorities friends, just name it otherwise (for example commandos to be more politically correct would do good with what I propose here), so don't focus on the name but on the functionalities.

 

[Makavcio]

Yeah, it's not going to happen. It's one of the no-no subjects especially for Murrica, where it's ok for a 18yo to have a M4 and do some collateral damage to civilians while bringing them democracy, but it's not ok for him to buy beer. Nobody is going to touch the terrorism subject with a 100-foot pole just to avoid the shitstorm that would follow. Shitstorms are bad for business, you know?

Furthermore, I don't really see terrorism as such an important factor in rise and fall of civilizations. It's a nuisance popularized though not invented in the XXth century, once or twice it was used as an excuse for wars (WW1, russian genocide in Chechnya etc.), it's the weapon of choice against overpopulation in arab world but should we compare it to other elements present in c5? In my opinion, no.

 

[gberetfr]

Yeah, it's not going to happen. It's one of the no-no subjects especially for Murrica, where it's ok for a 18yo to have a M4 and do some collateral damage to civilians while bringing them democracy, but it's not ok for him to buy beer. Nobody is going to touch the terrorism subject with a 100-foot pole just to avoid the shitstorm that would follow. Shitstorms are bad for business, you know?

Furthermore, I don't really see terrorism as such an important factor in rise and fall of civilizations. It's a nuisance popularized though not invented in the XXth century, once or twice it was used as an excuse for wars (WW1, russian genocide in Chechnya etc.), it's the weapon of choice against overpopulation in arab world but should we compare it to other elements present in c5? In my opinion, no.

As everybody seems to so much focus on this terrorist term I'll change it, so the discussion goes to the functionnalities, which is to buff warmongering civilizations vs cultural and dilpomatic ones.

 

[gberetfr]

Done, looks better ? More politically correct and sellable to US ? !

 

[gberetfr]

Furthermore, I don't really see terrorism as such an important factor in rise and fall of civilizations. It's a nuisance popularized though not invented in the XXth century, once or twice it was used as an excuse for wars (WW1, russian genocide in Chechnya etc.), it's the weapon of choice against overpopulation in arab world but should we compare it to other elements present in c5? In my opinion, no.

Not everything in Civ5 are important factors in rise and fall of civilizations ! And yeah I think it would be usefull to be able to do something that is a nuisance to culture/diplomatic civs without being a complete war.

 

[kwidem]

.

 

[gberetfr]

Yes, the idea is better now, and more realistic, if a city is being bombarded, the tourism output should drop, that's common sense.

Thanks ! I also think that this at least should be implemented.

 

[Staal]

You guys really give far too much weight to what a handful of lefties will say about a game mechanic. Plenty of games, movies, novels include "terrorists" and they sell just fine. There is no reason why Civilization would suddenly lose many customers over it. Sure some idiot might write a dodge article about it but it will have nearly no effect. Unless the game goes out and tries to make a political statement that justifies terrorism the VAST majority of people won't care. Stop using that as a reason.

Sure the developers of this game choice to avoid ALL topics that are considered sensitive. That doesn't mean they are right. It just means the lead designer is a hippy.

EDIT: Think about Crusader Kings II. They have the Crusades in it! The Middle East in its never-ending double standard thinking (they invaded Spain, France before the Crusades and then later Eastern Europe) are still get upset about it yet Paradox feels nothing for including this supposedly "offensive" theme in their game.

I don't get why there is a collection of Civ posters that feel a game has to be completely sanitized. Firstly it is impossible and secondly it is stupid to cater to the self righteous issues of people that most likely won't play the game in the first place.

 

[gberetfr]

You guys really give far too much weight to what a handful of lefties will say about a game mechanic. Plenty of games, movies, novels include "terrorists" and they sell just fine. There is no reason why Civilization would suddenly lose many customers over it. Sure some idiot might write a dodge article about it but it will have nearly no effect. Unless the game goes out and tries to make a political statement that justifies terrorism the VAST majority of people won't care. Stop using that as a reason.

Sure the developers of this game choice to avoid ALL topics that are considered sensitive. That doesn't mean they are right. It just means the lead designer is a hippy.

EDIT: Think about Crusader Kings II. They have the Crusades in it! The Middle East in its never-ending double standard thinking (they invaded Spain, France before the Crusades and then later Eastern Europe) are still get upset about it yet Paradox feels nothing for including this supposedly "offensive" theme in their game.

I don't get why there is a collection of Civ posters that feel a game has to be completely sanitized. Firstly it is impossible and secondly it is stupid to cater to the self righteous issues of people that most likely won't play the game in the first place.

Completely agree with you (just one thing, I think that righties would complain more than lefties as you said !). As I said, you can already raze cities and commit genocides in Civ, some may see something scandalous and say the game is outrageous and needs to be banned !

In Civ III or IV, you were able to choose Slavery as an equivalent of a now Social Policy, I don't recall any trouble for that.

But anyway, my point was to try to improve lmid-late game for warmongers, giving them another option.