Terrorism in Civ: Would it be so bad?

[Goombaz]

I noted that in one thing I read about Civ 4, they specifically mentioned that "Terrorism related" espionage type actions were not going to be in the game. Now, I am not saying we should have ludicrously offensive things in a game just for fun. I am not advocating anything silly like giving Islam a +5 Terrorism bonus, or having an eradicated the jews mode of play, that is obviously PURELY meant to be offensive.

However, I view "terrorism" related actions in a different light. What role would a terrorist action serve? It would anger, intimidate, and disorganize an empire if it was applied ruthlessly, just put in the game "as is" it would not clearly implicate any victim or aggressor. It would simply be something that ANY civilization X could do to any civilization Y. It would obviously be really bad for your reputation in the world.

Anyhow, I was thinking that it would actually be quite appropriate for Civ. I didn't play too much Civ before Civ 3(you can throw stuff at me for that if you like), but I have played my share of empire building TBS games. I know that any action you can take enriches the experience, and just because the current political climate places special emphasis on terrorism, it is a shame that they cave on it. I don't think terrorism is acceptable, justifiable, or reasonable in real life *EVER*, but I think that part of playing a game is that we can roleplay extremely ruthless people. Is terrorism really any worse than when you steamroller another civ and take all of their cities, enslave many of them, and destroy their way of life? I think not.

I am aware that people have lost loved ones in the terror attacks, but I politely point out that many people the world over have lost relatives in many of the exact same actions you can already do in Civ.

 

[m15a]

i agree with what you're saying basically in your post. terrorism is something that has occured repeatedly throughout history, in various situations and locations. (i'm saying that in a vague way since i'm not so clear on the facts.) just for the fact that it's another option, i know i'd enjoy it. and i did utilize that aspect of spies in civ 2. (although i didn't know it was called terrorism at the time come to think of it . . ) and really, in the grand scheme of things, i can't think that its any worse than including nuclear weapons in the game.

but on the other hand, it's not really a major issue. i think everyone would notice if something like nuclear weapons were missing. imho, terrorists or spies missing is pretty minor, even if you've played civ 2. considering that, i can understand why the developers would be rather safe than sorry.

i'm glad there's so much modding going on. kind of makes it so the developers don't have to say, "don't put terrorists in the game." but rather, "we decided not to put terrorists in the game."

 

[donkeyimage]

There should at least be some sort of covert land action units... Like the privateer but on foot; not powerful yet able to cause some chaos. This way we get the effects without the word "terrorist".

 

[sela1s1son]

If you could do old Civ I/II actions like "Poison City Water Supply" that'd be interesting, although it should be bad for your reputation if you're implicated.

In Civ II you could plant a nuke using a spy (which was still a unit), and as horrific it is to think that it might happen (even in a game), it added an element. The odds were very high you'd fail and get caught. You might succeed (but get found out), and there was a tiny chance it'd be a "mysterious blast". I wouldn't be against this, but it'd have to be through some generic unit or espionage as in Civ III. If it was a *generic* thing like that, and *anyone* with the appropriate civ advance could do... however I think it should run the risk of Alpha Centauri's Attrocity (in which EVERY Civilization would declare war on you and despise you). I wouldn't see it as offensive. I was offended when in (the TV show Babylon 5) it was indicated the San Diego suffered such a fate, they even show the ruins in one episode. It'd indeed be horrific, and the price should be high. There could be a less destructive one that's higher then the poison city water supply instead... I'm just looking at old Civilization games for ideas.

I think even in Civ 2, doing that would result in everyone declaring war on you. Furthermore, I think that if my second example (from previous civ games) was included, that it should likely result in a lot of unhappy people in *your own* civilization and perhaps even trigger causing cities leaving your civilization (to create thier own, joining other civilizations, becoming "barbarians" (it'd be too ironic here)). So if Fictionland attacked Fictionia in such a way, perhaps some cities would join Fictioncountry/Fictionia/etc.

I can see why, they'd exclude, and I don't blame them. Perhaps, on the flip side, there could be not only harsh punishments for using such evil deeds, but rewards for not? Think of it like this: Perhaps you can sign a treaty you could sign with civs (or as a global community) that would bar member civs from using such deeds. The pay off? Better relations, reputation recovers faster, trade benefits, culture benefits, etc. Also a sense of safety that they won't do it to you. I'm not sure how it'd be implemented, but if it could be done it'd be a great counter balance. Perhaps (let's call it "Geneva Convention" or "Articles of War") would also ban (or lead to harsher punishments) for "poison city water supply", or even razing cities.

So instead of terrorism, we could say attrocity like they did in Alpha Centauri. Thus you could create ways to take a stronger stance against it. Perhaps the building of a wonder (Articles of War, we'll call it) calls every civ to agree to "Articles of War" (and they can later join), or make it a small wonder that one can build (this making it a pernament decision) to be a member of "The Geneva Convention".

Example: We'llsay "Poison City Water Supply" exists again, and razing cities is an option when you capture/own them. Let us say both are considered an attrocity. Let us presume that eight civilizations have all built the "Articles of War" small wonder. Let us say Rome razes a city (of any Civilization) or uses "Poision City Water Supply" (and gets caught? or always?). EVERY one of those eight Civs who built that small wonder AUTOMATICALY declares war on the Romans. The War remains fixed until certains circumstances are satisfied (time limit, Rome's fall, reperations, whatever). Also, for the civs forced to go to war there is either a lessened or non-existent disapproval of such a war, making it so it doesn't punish the Civs "forced" to war. Even if there's only a percentage chance (which may be reasonable) the civs with Articles of War would declare war (although if one did, they all would), it'd still be a fair deterrent to it being abused... but allow you to play nice and benefit to.

Perhaps, for the above, if a member nation is the victim... they will always declare war... if a non-member nation is the victim they're very likely to.

I think controversial issues/functions like this are more digestable when you offer the opposite aspect (IE: terrorist actions vs Geneva Convention/Articles of War). In essence if you create a choice beyond (use it or don't), it's better... in this case "Use it, don't use it, or oppose it". One of the great things they've done with Civ III and Civ IV is allow more abiltiy to "play nice" and win, yet still allow "be a bully" and win. (IE the addition of Culutral, and Diplomatic victories).

So if it's going to be included (either example I gave, or a new one), make it a fork in the road for people to go the other route as opposed to simply just not using it. If you can make it rewarding to play nice as well, then I think it'd be more digestable as I said earlier.

----
Edit: Perhaps the "Articles of War" would be neccessary to get multiple civs (and not just the target and thier allies) declaring war on you for evil deeds. This would allow the Romans (or any civ for that matter, I'm just referring to my earlier example) to "Poison City Water Supply" or raze a city in Ancient times perhaps, but discourage it even more later in the game. It'd make sense, in a way, as it would mean as time goes on civs would abandon such barbaric practices.

 

[Drakan]

Nope. In Civ II we had spyes poisonning the water supply not to mention those lovely nuclear devices they set-off in cities. Oh, Civ II what fond memories ... -sigh-.

What do you call that ?

Some would say its patriotism, the other side will say it's terrorism.

I say it's civ fun at it's best.

 

[TerraHero]

Gamemakers are all waaay to conserned about the political correctness of there games. Good to a curtain lvl, but political correctness is waving between 2 extremes.

"Hello, i want to by a copy of GTA:SA and a shotgun" "no can do, that stuffs dangerous, as for teh shotgun. Want ammo with that?"

I'm sure someone will make there own mod with terrorism in it, but why are gamemakers so afraid of politics?

Now a dyas no one seems to be able to take responsible for there actions and all blame it on someone else

"i shot that guy 3x in his face, but only after i listene to Eminem." "Thats okay kid, go home. Bailor, bring me mister Shady, and charge him with murder"

its complete nonsense...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Trust me, if I can mod in 'covert operations' and/or extra spy missions (which might be designated as terrorism in the real world) then you can bet your sweet life I will be doing it !
A couple of possibilities which might be easy enough to do:

Spy missions:
-Commit terror bombing (destroy 1 random improvement. -1 happiness, -1 health).

-Release chemical agent in city (-2 health, -1 happiness.)

-Release biological agent in city (-2 health, -1 happiness OR -1 population.) Alternatively, biological agents could cause -2 health and cause the loss of a population point if the negative health penalty brought the city's total health below a certain threshold (depends on how complex we wanted to make it!)

-commit agricultural terrorism (cause 1 bonus food resource to disappear and/or cause 1 random tile to generate -1 food units).

-Plant nuclear device (KA-BOOM!!! 'nuff said !)

New units.

-Suicide Bomber (invisible to all but counter-terrorist units, acts as cruise missile).

-suitcase nuker (as suicide bomber, but with more 'bang for your buck!).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Superkrest]

i have to stick with the sentiment that government sponserd terriosm should be in the game..but there is a gray area that should just be avoided in my opinion...i liked the old missions from 2...maybe a lil more in depth...such as "sponsor assanition" city governor is killed...production halted for X turns..but i would just stear clear of the words suicide and bomber in the same sentace...maybe instead you could "plant exlposive device" to target specific buildings inside the city.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, with Great People being such an important part of Civ4, you could have assassinations as a spy mission. I think that would be cool too !
I also had the thought that, whatever else acts of terror should do, they should definitely hurt the economy of the targeted civ.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Superkrest]

i completely forgot about the great people...that would be cool..


like i said before..if im playing as a "state"...then any terrorism i sponsor should be a little more on the "state" level.

 

[Ranbir]

I find it curious they were willing to add Religion though, and even have missionaries to go out and convert, albeit peacefully. But I guess you can convert cities by force too....

Very curious. I think they need to relook how they're going about "being careful".

 

[sela1s1son]

As I said earlier... if they offer a choice to "play nice" "play nuetral" or "play mean"... and make all three viable (and risky in thier own ways), it'd make it easier to digest, and fun.

Is Industrial Sabotage in the game? SOme people might consider it terrorism, others may not... just wondering... as if they removed that it'd be... a poor choice IMHO.

 

[Ranbir]

I wonder what espionage choices -are- left. I mean...I'm not so excited now to build my mini-CIA HQ if the only options out of it is "spy city"

 

[Yusaku Jon III]

I have to say this again, but if they upgraded the barbarian units along with every age or tech advance so that you'd not have axe-wielding warriors running about when your mech infantry roll in, it'd be quite interesting. In this case, the terrorist would be a guerrilla given additional stealth abilities enabling them to not be seen except by another guerrilla, a spy unit (if Civ4 will have them) or advanced observation posts/intelligence agency. The effects of a terrorist attack could then resemble that of artillery/ship/airplane bombardment and wreck city improvements or kill citizens. Numbers of terrorists could also weaken a city defenses until they're able to occupy the city and make it their own base of operations. Additionally, rival civs would use their spies to recruit terrorists to carry out the dirty work on land that privateers did at sea, as has been done several times in real life.

 

[Alistic]

Indeed a part of history.

Sounds like an excuse for politicians on capitol hill to sit around talking about video games all day instead of solving real world issues like terrorism.

It amazes me how those guys focus on video game violence, as is the case with GTA, instead of the actual violence itself. I wish someone in the media would call these guys out, for being such slackers.

 

[TerraHero]

i liked the "Public Hit" in previous games, where u're terrorist killed a public figure causing serious happiness loss.

The chemical warfare would alos add a whole new range of ways to fight a war.

But my voerall opinio is that they should make it more like the previous civ games, Space-age development! Not being afraid of adding some really weird or spectacular goverments. (hipptopia! with its Eden Project)

Add some mroe daring units, like terrorists, or the sublimal message balloons. Adding alot mroe depth into teh combat system.

Let me build my cities in the oceans again! or heck, even in space!

 

[megabrainz]

Terrorists should be the modern equivalent of barbarians (except that they could exist within your borders). Although to be entirely realistic they should have invisible units (like submarines) and vast quantities of cash would be sunk trying to locate their hidden bases. Also, vanquished civs should generate terrorist camps within their old territory, rather like the old guerrillas that appeared if you conquered a city in Civ II.

Of course, states should be able to sponsor terrorism too. But in fact that would be a very cool mechanic for barbarians as well. How cool would it be if you could, instead of attacking barbarian tribes, subvert them to your side so that they come under your control: Like a privateer, they would not show up as belonging to any one nation.

On the other hand I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the sensitivity of the subject. Sure, if you can just conduct a generic "terrorist mission", it would probably be ok. But if (for example) you could make a bombing attack which killed civilians - that might be a bit too much like identifying with the terrorists. It might even be illegal if done here in Britain! (at least, after the latest legislation is passed)

 

[megabrainz]

New suggestion (entirely too late in the day): There should be a new type of "specialist citizen" called a criminal/terrorist. A criminal/terrorist uses up food, but produces nothing - in fact it costs you money (and maybe production). They occur naturally in all cities, and the larger the city the more there will be.

Police stations and courts help to reduce the number of criminals, as do military police. The number is also affected by other factors: For example, if you have recently conquered a Civ, foreign citizens from that Civ may become criminals/terrorists; and the probability relates directly to how different your cultures are. Differences in religion and civics would increase the odds of crime/terrorism.

Additionally, certain government types might be prone to crime/terrorism. Changes of Government might produce criminals/terrorists attached to the old order.

You can deliberately send ambassador/spy-type units into enemy cities with a mission to foment terrorism/crime.

Criminals/terrorists would fill the role that corruption used to occupy. They would act like a semi-permanent resistance to your Government.

 

[th0mas]

Terrorists = freedom fighters it just depends on where you stand.

The Civ on the recieving end of a terrorist atrocity tends to view the action in a different light from the civilisation performing Freedom Fighter operations.

The point is that "terrorist" acivities = covert operations and that is how it should be handled in CIV 4. If a Civilization is caught commting a covert act that would have an impact on its reputation with all relevent civlizations.

It would have a positive/beneficial impact with those civilsations who approve of the action (brave strike for freedom against the imperialist bullyboys)

...and a negative effect with those civilizations who do not approve (fanatical terrorist atrocity against a legitimate government)

There may be some actions (although this is debatable) that would be deemed an 'atrocity' (a la SMAC) by all civilisations (detonating a nuclear bomb by spy action).

 

[Superkrest]

im gonna stick to the idea that it should not be a government sponsord unit...rather a division of espionage....as we all know..governments have been doing this sort of thing for ages...why not just implement any sort of terroror as just an act of espionage...no feelings get hurt..and the goal is still aclomplished...items like "sponsor assanination"(random target{city gov}or great leader{more risk}), "plant explosive" (same as above random or specific) incite rebels(not to flip city..just to start rebelion or civil war if allowed) this should be incredibly expensive and have a large degree of risk.. and finally "support rebeling" with either supplies men, money whatever..jsut some ideas...but overall i think terriosist units are a bad idea. just for some peoples emotions sake.