Terrorism conquest

[necrolyte]

possibly a little too modern and touchy for the more PC types, but it would be pretty cool.

Abu Bakr could be Osama bin Laden (obvious one right there).
King Osman could be the Saudi king
Alexander for Dubya
Caesar for Tony Blair
Bismark or the Hittite king or Henry the Navigator could be Saddam Hussein
Gilgamesh could be the Ayatollah
Henry the Navigator could also be Karzai
Ghandi could be Musharraf

The terrorist could be a stealth unit with a 6 bombard ranking, and the Americans could have "homeland security agents" that can spot terrorists.

Guerillas can also be built by the terrorists.

I dont know what the point of the game would be (victory points, regicide), but I suppose it would start in October 2001. Maybe it could have a short 48-96 turn limit (to represent Dubya's term in office.)?

 

[Black Waltz]

*rolls eyes* What IS this fixation with terrorism? You don't here us clamoring for a Northen Ireland conquest, do you?

 

[necrolyte]

That could be done, but it would be as boring as hell.

 

[thestonesfan]

That was some helpful input, Black Waltz.

Disregarding the naysayers, I think it would be interesting. It would be difficult to make because of the scale of the conflict, however. You'd need a big world map.

I dunno about Bismarck as Saddam, though...he'd need a wig...

 

[Black Waltz]

I'm sorry. But I don't see the relevance of it. This is a game about Civilisations - not groups of conspirators with a political motive. These people talking about Terrorists and such in the game are simply picking up the fervur about it in the media and thinking it some brand new thing which should be in games. Wrong. And especially not in Civilisation.

 

[Ekmek]

the historical significance of the war on terror isnt known because its current. this could be a major watershed in history. its already global like ww2 and militaries/terrrists are able to strike from incredible differences at unknown times.

 

[Globetrotter]

Agreed with BW. IMO, it is not cool to have the game turned into a "political" one.

In any case, if someone wants to play with "terrorism" like unit, just edit the .bic file, make the guerilla unit with hidden nationality, make it treat all terrain like roads, and send it out to kill/pillage anything in AI territory.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Globetrotter
Agreed with BW. IMO, it is not cool to have the game turned into a "political" one.

So is a WW2 mod not counted as "politcal" for some reason?

Seriously guys, who cares? This mod would be no different than many others.

 

[Black Waltz]

WWII is historical.

As for the 'millitants/terrorists' able to strike great distances at short times... Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda... The US was attacked once. Once. The only country making it global is the US.

It angers me so much to see false information like that diseminated as fact. Anyway, as it has nothing to do with Civilisations then it really has no place in the game.

If you want to mod it yourself - fine. Knock yourself out.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Id have to agree with Black Waltz.

However, it would be nice to have the barbarian units in modern ages be called terorists. And what would be even more interessting is if you could somehow give the "terrorist" units a modded enslavement ability, allowing them to use captured tanks and armor. Opening up for terrorists to actually become a real threat to areas where there is only very weak PC military prescence i.e. Afghanistan after the Soviet union left, tons of weapons everywhere which was captured and used against the "allied" forces invading after september 11.

 

[Black Waltz]

But are there any barbarians left in the Modern Ages? I never have any of my land left unsettled by that time.

 

[GR8Madmax]

If some one doesn't like an idea posted, just stay out of the thread. There is no need to thread crap and *turn it into a political discussion*. It only leads to threads being closed.

I'm not too high on scenarios/conquests but I'd be inclined to play such a scenario when I get bored with the epic game and if some one releases it. I'm all for any scenario with locked alliances.

 

[Black Waltz]

Ideas are for discussion. I am entitled to discuss why I don't like an idea as much as you are entitled to discuss why you like such an idea. That is why it is a forum. A forum for discussion - not mindless agreement.

 

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by Black Waltz
WWII is historical.

As for the 'millitants/terrorists' able to strike great distances at short times... Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda... The US was attacked once. Once. The only country making it global is the US.

It angers me so much to see false information like that diseminated as fact. Anyway, as it has nothing to do with Civilisations then it really has no place in the game.

If you want to mod it yourself - fine. Knock yourself out.

Once? ONCE? what about the embassies? what about Khobar towers? the USS Cole? 1993 World Trade center? Oklahoma bombing? and some claim a flight in 96 off of NY.

Its global because its a problem in the philipines, indonesia, and even groups are linked to the drug trade in South America, Ireland, more.

A scenario would play this about because its just a fact of technology and globalization that people can move farther and attack with more powerful weapons.

 

[Black Waltz]

Let me re-phrase that. The US has only been attacked once in such a way. All others have been conventional explosives.

And anyway. That still does not change the fact that this is then about individuals - not clashes of civilisations.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Black Waltz
And anyway. That still does not change the fact that this is then about individuals - not clashes of civilisations.

A clash of ideologies, definately not individuals.

 

[GR8Madmax]

What's the difference between terrorism using "conventional explosives" and being "attacked once in such a way"? Clashes between individuals, you say. I didn't see Bush vs. Hussein on Pay-per-view. I must have missed it.

Again, such a scenario is not going to appeal to every one but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be created. Terrorism is a part of "modern times" and I wouldn't mind seeing it in the game or as a scenario.

 

[Black Waltz]

Nopers. If you're on about 'Democracy' vs 'Evil' then I really have to start shouting. It just doesn't suit Civilisations. Terrorists are simply small groups of people. Also, if you start using Terrorists in games like this then people will start to forget that Terrorists can also be freedom fighters - depending on the circumstance. Do we really need horizons narrowed even further then popular media reporting has made it? Civilisation is about Civilisations through history - not single individuals with a certain greviance.

 

[GR8Madmax]

Again, I disagree. Why not have 'freedom fighters' in conquered cities? It makes hanging on to a captured city/land much more difficult if your units are being attacked and your citizens back home are getting restless.

Terrorism, even though carried out by a small group most of the time, can be state sponsored. Isn't sabotaging a space ship component being built in a rival city basically state sponsored terrorism? What about creating a pirate ship and going around sinking rival ships?

As much as you might disagree, terrorism is already in the game. Therefore, I wouldn't mind it seen expanded a little more. That's all I'm saying.

 

[necrolyte]

Yeah... I loved poisoning the water supplies in civ2 :-D

two things; the Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan, and still control much of it.

Al-Quaeda is trying to take over the Arab world and become a 'civilization' (or unite the Arab/Islamic 'civilization')


So it fits your definition of a conquest.

It would be comparable in my mind to the "Fall of Rome" scenario. The terrorists would have a few small training camps to produce guerillas, terrorists, assassins, antiquated tanks and mujihadeen.

Then America, Russia, and England are all fighting the terrorists.