terror units

[skycommando]

state-funded terror has been a fact of modern civilization since the end of wwii, if not before. like privateers, these would be units with no indication of national origin (though it could be determined somehow). or, like sabotage, terror could just be a function you perform on a city or civ. once you are linked to terror operations, the fall-out would be tremendous. but it is an option player's should have.

 

[Boris Badinov]

Terrorist and guerilla units should be invisible, like spies, and be able to carry out several espionage types of missions. That means we can give terrorist and guerilla units the ability to use WMD’s, which were scrapped in CIV III because of 9/11. That begs the demand for a counter-terrorist unit to find and eliminate these hidden units.

 

[primeminister99]

Yeah I think that's a good idea. Although for counter-terrorist units a pre-requisite should be building the intellgence agency, or a complementary building.

Also I think that guerilla units should still be able to function in a conquered nation even if all their cities are taken so as to increase the realism of the game, but still keep it fun. This would even create the option of allowing gureillas the ability of taking one of your cities (or one of their original ones) and 'liberating' it thus having their civilization be reborn creating the nessecity to maintain an occupation and try to "win hearts and minds". So long as you treat their citizens poorely, Ie: don't let them share your luxuries, don't build luxury buildings, displace and disperce them and use them as forced labour system, starve them or treat them in generally opressive ways. This can be extended by having the option to deny city's political representation in democratic forms of government. This would have the effect of unleashing first un-happyness but then if it isn't dealt with guerillas and terrorists. I would also extend the applicable actions of this to the human player and of course other civ's that aren't completely conquered but had a region of their territory taken by another player.

I think the terrorist unit should work similar to the spy unit from civ2 but be invisible like was previously stated.

 

[dh_epic]

I prefer the term "freedom fighter".

And, naturally, I think sometimes such freedom fighters should appear to fight your civilization, whether you build them or not ... at least under situations of high amounts of corruption or civil disorder. This could replace barbarianism later in the game (and be influenced by the same settings from "roaming" to "rampaging").

 

[primeminister99]

I think this specific term was used because skycommando wanted to ask whether people wanted terrorists, not guerillas although I did bring that up to and used them interchangably. I still think terrorists and guerillas should be a part of civ4 though.

Oh yeah I forgot to say that If you have 'freedom fighter's' based on barbarians from Civ3 then the ability for them to liberate cities will be lost.

 

[Archer 007]

I think too many people would be offended by this.

 

[primeminister99]

Well mabye they should be called spy's then. The fact of the matter is that people who use terror to further their aims are terrorists whether people like it or not.

 

[Archer 007]

Yes, but due to recent events, people wont find such action to be proper.

 

[collin_stp]

you would be surprised how people wouldn't really care that much. I mean red alert 2 had terrorists, and suicide truck bombers, and did anybody care? (maybe they did, I just didn't hear about it) Also, look at Grand Theft Auto, people complained a ton (for very justifiable reasons), but it is still was a popular game. I hate how people over-PC things, like how they had to use NAZI terrorists in a Sum of All Fears (unlike in the book, which had a Palestinian, eco-terrorist, and another which I forget).

Now back to the game. In addition to terrorists, which would be used more by weaker nations, maybe there should be special ops, etc.

 

[Binnor]

You couldn't really have late game barbarians or 'freedom fighters' because their function is been made obsolete. My major problems with barbarians are caused by barbarians attacking unguarded units or occasionally unguarded cities. But by the middle ages all my cities and units have protection so a late game barbarian would be a very very slight headache rather than the problems the barbarians present early in the game.

 

[rcoutme]

The playability problem with hidden-nationality ground units made them untenable, IIRC. They were tested (so I'm told) in either PTW or C3C and unbalanced the game. There would need to be a much more detailed limit and rules system for their incorporation.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the principles are there, though. A unit that conceals its nationality, and highly stealthy. Of course, "terrorist" is just the word people use to describe the enemy. But every nation from east to west has sponsored some kind of "foreign intervention" -- often secretly -- to influence the world in the way they want it.

I'd like to see more of this kind of indirect foreign intervention, puppet mastering if you would, rather than direct war. After all, that's how the modern world works -- a lot of covert or indirect action without a direct declaration of War.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Bear in mind, terrorists demoralize the civilian population. They don't do much notable physical damage (the 9/11 attack is the exception rather than the rule), instead they rely on either arousing the pity of the targeted leaders or inciting the citizenry to beg for their demands to be met. In Civ terms, a terrorist attack would do less than one population point's worth of damage to a city and destroy no improvements, but it would create unhappiness for either a certain amount of time or until you cave into their demands (whichever comes first). If those demands happen to be something like "Sign a Peace Treaty with Xerxes," they could seriously alter the course of the game, similar to War Weariness. Of course, if you cave into the smaller demands, like lump sum gold payments, you'd solve the problem at a fairly low cost, and you'd also have a brief period without terrorist attacks (for gameplay purposes, of course). After that time, there would be a higher risk of terrorists returning, and their demands would be higher. So, if a terrorist demands a fairly small gold payment, you'd have to decide how important it is to keep your people happy at that moment.

Also, your civ should be able to "sponsor" terrorism. If the demands are met, you get a cut of the spoils. Obviously, if you demand resources, you wouldn't be able to re-trade those to another country or they'd get suspicious.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think this resembles the way things work in the real world. In most cases, terrorists are sponsored by countries that are already divided themselves. Often by a group of leaders not recognized by the united nations as the rightful rulers / decision makers of the country.

In other words, terrorism is not something a leader controls directly. If your countrymen are pissed off, they'll join a terrorist cause, and target whoever is to blame. That could be your enemy, or it could be YOU.

Terrorism units are no more logical than Gangster units, or Mercenary units -- they are not encouraged by the government (but all of the above have been encouraged by the government at one time or another).

Freedom fighters and guerillas still make sense, however.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

There are already in C3C units that represent a rather political than military concept like the inquisitor or the assassin or erlier the ninja. But these units are restricted to a military role with the usual attack/defense stats and do not influense the structure of the gameplay...I think that the rest is up to everyone's imagination during his game. There are so many instances at which CIV does not represent the real world, that I dont understand(apart from guerillas spawning when you capture a city) why this deserves a special scrutiny...

 

[Joey_Ramone]

you would be surprised how people wouldn't really care that much. I mean red alert 2 had terrorists, and suicide truck bombers, and did anybody care? (maybe they did, I just didn't hear about it) Also, look at Grand Theft Auto, people complained a ton (for very justifiable reasons), but it is still was a popular game. I hate how people over-PC things, like how they had to use NAZI terrorists in a Sum of All Fears (unlike in the book, which had a Palestinian, eco-terrorist, and another which I forget).

Now back to the game. In addition to terrorists, which would be used more by weaker nations, maybe there should be special ops, etc.

I agree with you. It's just a game, and I think people realize that. Even in Civ now you can raze a city or starve it's population. I've killed more innocents than Hitler and Stalin combined; it's just a game.

 

[dh_epic]

Two things: One, you're right, a lot of imagination is needed to make Civ represent the real world. We just have to be comfortable drawing that line. Moving that line has been part of what's made Civ change from 1 to 2 to 3.

Second thing, about political correctness... I remember the same discussions about Fascism that made me roll my eyes. "It would offend people" said one camp. And another camp was saying "as a fascist, you would build a Holocaust small-wonder which would give you bonuses". Both these groups made me roll my eyes, because I think they understand history but not politics, economics, or sociology (not that I'm an expert, I'm a computer guy).

Fascism is just an intellectual alternative to democracy -- no holocaust required. The same way that guerilla warfare is an alternative to billion dollar tanks. The same way that unsanctioned attacks on a population is an alternative to civil unrest (even if it's VERY immoral by most standards).

To me, "terrorists" would only appear based on civil unrest or resistance. Otherwise they wouldn't be all that different from a guerilla unit. You wouldn't even call them terrorists so much as an "uprising", since terrorism is too narrow and specialized a concept.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

point about drawing the line taken...
still we need to clarify the in-game mechanics that would permit the appearence of the unit
a possible solution is that this could be the only unit that you would be able to produce in a protracted period of civil unrest eg anarchy or Dark Ages( see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89209)

 

[Philips beard]

I think too many people would be offended by this.

People that are so easely offended, does not have my respect! Let them find their own planet to make their Utopia dreams come true....
I want Civ to be based on the real life!

 

[Philips beard]

The playability problem with hidden-nationality ground units made them untenable, IIRC. They were tested (so I'm told) in either PTW or C3C and unbalanced the game. There would need to be a much more detailed limit and rules system for their incorporation.

I must say I strongly agree!