Terrorism in Civ: Would it be so bad?

[Varelse]

I guess if you can be a communist or a fascist you should be able to do terrorism. It might be interesting to add a propoganda element(an Al Jazeera or a BBC or something like that) to negate the negative effects of terrorist activity, particularly if a target of the terrorism is aggressive in it's response to it. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a good example of what I mean.

 

[Superkrest]

dont be fooled..the us also sponsord terrorism...i think it should just be a little bit cheaper for communist government.

 

[th0mas]

im gonna stick to the idea that it should not be a government sponsord unit...rather a division of espionage.. *snip*..but overall i think terriosist units are a bad idea. just for some peoples emotions sake.

I agree with your essential premise that the term 'terrorism' may be offensive to some people (personally I think this is a fallout from its incorrect use in the term "war on terror" by our friend George). IMO Terrorism really defines how an action is percieved by the speaker (shock, horror etc) rather than actually describing the type of action or its effect on the target population.

So...I think there is room for both Espionage activies and 'terrorist/guerilla/covert' operations taken by units on the map. Remember Pillaging by units is an act of terrorism when viewed from the macro-scale that is a civilization game.

To add to this, a promotion that allowed units to be able to perform covert operations (destruction of buildings and/or civilians in a City), would also fit the model.