Terrorism in BTS??

[Luso]

Hi
I would like to know if in the game we can have some act of terrorism as per example : Kamikazes,outrage/assault,or something else related to terrorism.

Because todays many civilizations are aware of this way of war,if the game dont have it Firaxis could put it in the next expansion or patch,if it will appear a next one.

Terrorism could be from advanced Barbarians,and every civilizations could be with them or against them.

What you think??

 

[Mr.Pizza]

yes!!!

 

[Smidlee]

There is something close to this in the " Civ Defense" scenario. I lost most of my units (they just disappeared) before I realize just what happen to them. So even in this simple scenario I found a few surprises.

 

[Ammar]

I think poisoning water supplies should count as terrorism.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Foment unrest, Poison water, Incite Revolt, Destroy Improvement/Building, Force Civics/Religion Change (how do you think they do that, Lobbyists?)

The game is full of Terrorism

 

[PieceOfMind]

No. I don't want to see explicit terrorism in the game.

Like the issue involving a certain [whisper]German[/whisper], it's too sensitive an area and I think Firaxis are wise to do as they've done. However, even espionage as they've implemented it is borderline - poisoning a city's water supply etc.

 

[dh_epic]

Terrorism honestly doesn't do that much. No terrorists can topple a government. They most they can do is kill 0.0001% of the population of a city. Their goal is to induce the government to spend so much money dealing with the problem that the government can't deal with anything else.

It's probably best represented by maintenance costs.

 

[chad187]

No. I don't want to see explicit terrorism in the game.

Like the issue involving a certain [whisper]German[/whisper], it's too sensitive an area and I think Firaxis are wise to do as they've done. However, even espionage as they've implemented it is borderline - poisoning a city's water supply etc.

what german?

 

[Dominico]

Micheal schumacher. They had to remove him because he won everything.

 

[mrt144]

Micheal schumacher. They had to remove him because he won everything.

best thing i've read all day

 

[Willowmound]

Foment unrest, Poison water, Incite Revolt, Destroy Improvement/Building, Force Civics/Religion Change (how do you think they do that, Lobbyists?)

The game is full of Terrorism

Yet this thread will go on and on regardless. People are funny.

 

[SeriousTiger]

No. I don't want to see explicit terrorism in the game.

Like the issue involving a certain [whisper]German[/whisper], it's too sensitive an area and I think Firaxis are wise to do as they've done. However, even espionage as they've implemented it is borderline - poisoning a city's water supply etc.

Sorry, but...er...what?

You don't want to see it? Ah, well then of course it shouldn't be in.

I agree with many of the more rational posts here, that basically there are elements of terrorism in the game and there are others that may not be for balance and/or game mechanics reasons.

But because someone doesn't like it? Not good enough I'm afraid - this game, more than most, has historically been about realism. Remember the internal hand-wringing and soul-searching that accompanied the inclusion of religion? Well, they figured out a way to put that in, and I would argue that that particular issue has caused more conflict through history than "terrorism" as we now appear to define it, or indeed your "certain German".

 

[Alsark]

There is a unit called the Privateer with Hidden Nationality. You can attack other naval units without declaring war, as well as set up blockades. This is somewhat like terrorism, since there is no nationality associated with the attackers.

 

[ComradeGeneral]

We could probably count the spies' espionage actions as state sponsored terrorism

 

[viz]

They should bring the plant nuclear device spy mission back...

 

[vodlaian]

I wouldn't mind seeing terrorism for realism, as long as they keep it realistic.. So civs would be able to conduct false-flag terrorism against their own people and blame it on any civ to decrease future war weariness in exchange for dumbed down citizens (-x science?)... like in real life.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Sorry, but...er...what?

You don't want to see it? Ah, well then of course it shouldn't be in.

I agree with many of the more rational posts here, that basically there are elements of terrorism in the game and there are others that may not be for balance and/or game mechanics reasons.

But because someone doesn't like it? Not good enough I'm afraid - this game, more than most, has historically been about realism. Remember the internal hand-wringing and soul-searching that accompanied the inclusion of religion? Well, they figured out a way to put that in, and I would argue that that particular issue has caused more conflict through history than "terrorism" as we now appear to define it, or indeed your "certain German".

I was just stating my opinion. Ultimately I wouldn't really care, but I think adding explicit terrorism in the game would take the game in the wrong direction and I would be really surprised if Firaxis (or whoever the next developer might be) seriously considered the idea. I don't see what's so interesing about terrorism anyway. Just because it's realistic doesn't mean it should be added. My opinion is just as rational as yours by the way. And you are right that religion has been more important than terrorism in conflict throughout history. Doesn't that strengthen my argument that terrorism needn't be put in the game???

Note I realise the state sponsored terrorism or espionage is already in the game but it is not explicit terrorism and it doesn't do any more than make a little red unhappy face etc.

Now I'm not usually one to be opposed to senseless violence in video games etc., but adding terrorism in Civ would be very pointless. I'd rather them fix national borders or diplomacy or something else long before they even think about putting terrorism in the game. Sorry to be a parrot but Civ is not a simulator of reality. So it is not unreasonable to ask that it not have explicit terrorism.

EDIT

I wouldn't mind seeing terrorism for realism, as long as they keep it realistic.. So civs would be able to conduct false-flag terrorism against their own people and blame it on any civ to decrease future war weariness in exchange for dumbed down citizens (-x science?)... like in real life.

EDIT2
Could you imagine the shock parents would have when they realised they're children were playing an E rated game with terrorist missions in it?

 

[meatwad4289]

We have privateers, why not have ground units that do the same? I would have to send units in to attack my friends. Pisslby even take over a city, Just while there is resisitance mark it as Barb once resitance is gone make it mine muahhaa. or atleats have them be able to trash country sides, I hate destroying my ransk to capture lone workers or pillaging towns ect.

 

[Thorbal]

They should bring the plant nuclear device spy mission back...

Was about to post that as well - I really miss that mission !

 

[[Comrade]RaVE]

There is a unit called the Privateer with Hidden Nationality. You can attack other naval units without declaring war, as well as set up blockades. This is somewhat like terrorism, since there is no nationality associated with the attackers.

I suppose pirates could be considered terrorists. I know they were during the 1600s.

I think it might be cool if you could "establish" modern barbarian bases in a mod or something. Maybe throw down a good chunk of gold to create a spawn for barbarians in enemy territory that throws partisan-esque guerrillas towards the nearest enemies (or possibly yourself, if unlucky). Sort of similar to the U.S. involvement in the Soviet/Afghani war or Soviet involvement in Vietnam?

If a friendly unit comes across it it becomes visible and alerts you. "A rebel base has been discovered within your borders!"