Terrorism Terror Terror Terror !

[Skybuck]

Hi,

I would definetly like to see some terrorism implemented in Civ 4...

Especially when the modern age is reached... like explosives etc...

I wanna see how terrorism can be combated in civ 4

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Double Stack]

I don't think you can directly commit terrorism but the concept of terrorism might be in there by a different point of view. Terrorism is a unique term now than it is in the past.

 

[Karaman]

There is a mod around where you can build a Terrorist unit.
A worker with lethal bombardment Omoshiroi!

 

[Meleager]

Until terrorists start using nukes -> terrorism is on too small a scale to fit into civilization.

 

[Himalia]

Theres no harm in have terrorisem in the game but for politcially corect reasons it cant associated to anyone in particular all should therefore be able to use it. It just harder for some to use it than others. For example a Democracey may find its own people upset by this alot while under facisem they dont care what your doing and so on.

 

[Skybuck]

Hmmm..

I was more thinking of this being automated or something...

Like bombs going of in your city.... just like natural catastrophies...

A goverment could secretly fund terrorists to commit these acts against their enemies...

Like a "tax/science bar"

Bye,
Skybuck

 

[apatheist]

Until terrorists start using nukes -> terrorism is on too small a scale to fit into civilization.

I disagree. Terrorism makes people, well, terrified. That affects the economy. Then there's property damage. You don't have to be able to destroy a whole city. Maybe there should be a separate "fear" emotion that citizens feel that various things affect. Terrorism increases fear. Building a police station reduces fear. Stationing troops reduces fear. Losing a war increases fear. Fearful citizens should be less happy and less productive. They should protest being in a war. Fearless citizens should be more belligerent and nationalistic. They should protest not being in a war.

 

[Che Guava]

I agree with Meleager...well, partly anyhow. As much as terrorism has captured our attention in the last few decades, I don't see it as a force so major that it deserves to be features in a game that is supposed to cover, well, all of civilization as we know it!

As far as I can see, terrorism tends to be either domestic or exported. The domestic type, usually done to encourage an occupying power to reconsider thier plans (i.e. viet cong, PLO), usually has small, short-term objectives and only usually works if it is a continued campaign. I think this type of terrorism is best represented through revolting citizens (although I think the concept could be tweaked). The exported terrorism (as best exemplified by certain un-named radical islamist groups) has no real objective in mind, other than to hurt its (perceived) opponent. As much as the events in NY, Madrid and London certainly stirred people (and led to some poorly planned military operations), I don't think these attacks have really turned the world as upside down as much as some leaders would have us beleive.

In short, I think terrorism should be implemented as a random chance event, made more likely by certain choices, but not represented by a combat unit. Acts like these are far from typical warfare, and I thin they should be treated as such.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I agree with Meleager...well, partly anyhow. As much as terrorism has captured our attention in the last few decades, I don't see it as a force so major that it deserves to be features in a game that is supposed to cover, well, all of civilization as we know it!

Terrorists started America's war in the Middle East. Sure, they're not running around the map occupying cities and such, but they have had severe economic, social, and political impact on the world.

As far as I can see, terrorism tends to be either domestic or exported. The domestic type, usually done to encourage an occupying power to reconsider thier plans (i.e. viet cong, PLO), usually has small, short-term objectives and only usually works if it is a continued campaign. I think this type of terrorism is best represented through revolting citizens (although I think the concept could be tweaked).

The Viet Cong sent America running out of Vietnam with its tail between its legs. Culture flipping doesn't have that power, and if it was given that power, the game would no longer be fun (Imagine taking over a backwards nation only to find that every single city culture flipped and sent your troops scrambling to the nearest helicopter! That would be the most annoying dice roll in the history of gaming). The PLO also has a major impact beyond cities flipping sides: It's made most people think twice before picking Tel Aviv as their next vacation site, it's caused Israel to draft every single citizen into a two-year stint of military service, and Sharon probably wouldn't have been inclined at all to vacate the Gaza Strip without their influence.

The exported terrorism (as best exemplified by certain un-named radical islamist groups) has no real objective in mind, other than to hurt its (perceived) opponent. As much as the events in NY, Madrid and London certainly stirred people (and led to some poorly planned military operations), I don't think these attacks have really turned the world as upside down as much as some leaders would have us beleive.

The "exported terrorists" managed to start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention kill the stock market and really tighten up security in America (namely the PATRIOT acts).

In short, I think terrorism should be implemented as a random chance event, made more likely by certain choices, but not represented by a combat unit. Acts like these are far from typical warfare, and I thin they should be treated as such.

Now here I do agree with you. Not entirely random, though; that would just be unfair. Still, terrorists are not combat units; there were no terror armies marching into New York and fighting the National Guard on 9/11. I think state-sponsored terrorism and counter-terrorism should be a part of a newly reformed Spy system. I believe that there are enough topics about reforming the Intelligence aspects of the game, so I won't go into detail (I don't even have any details!).

 

[ShunNakamura]

Well The way I imagine would work best is if a unit would have an option of "Fund Terrorism" when selected it would make an encampment where the unit was at. It would eat up a certian amount of gold(slider type thing sounds good) and would randomly attack civs that you weren't on good relations with. However if another civ managed to get a unit close enough to see your terriorist encampment or randomly found out from other sources it would severly hurt your relations and posibly start a set of wars. Course disabling and destroying(turning on your encampment) could rectify this somewhat though they would still be wary of you.

Not perfect but it is just what came to my mind when I read this topic.

 

[Crayton]

Making camps sounds cool. We should require them to be un-adjacent to a city square.
The Terrorists could attack civs with different religions or, more specifically, religions that warred against your civ before, even from way back in the eleventh century!

 

[ShunNakamura]

Yeah.. making a camp too close to your cities wouldn't make sense. Diplomats and such could find them easier ... your people would KNOW rather then suspect and if it got targeted by another civ your city could be in the cross fire. Definately should be in remote areas from the cities.

 

[mastertyguy]

Fearful citizens should be less happy and less productive. They should protest being in a war. Fearless citizens should be more belligerent and nationalistic. They should protest not being in a war.

???? Do you fearful Americans prostest against war? Do we Quebecers and lots of other countries protest NOT being at war?

 

[ShunNakamura]

I don't think it is so much the protesting against the war.. Rather the fact that even in my area(voted least likely to suffer terrorism(small hick town)) people were afraid to use air transist for a few months. If there were bus bombs that become known here.. well guess what? those same people would be afraid of the bus transist.

Also several people started buying up gas like mad. Gas prices jumped after 9/11. Some people I knew began to stock up on can goods and would refuse to spend money on luxuries. etc.. This has to have some effect on a nation.

 

[joethreeblah]

I don't think it is so much the protesting against the war.. Rather the fact that even in my area(voted least likely to suffer terrorism(small hick town)) people were afraid to use air transist for a few months. If there were bus bombs that become known here.. well guess what? those same people would be afraid of the bus transist.

Also several people started buying up gas like mad. Gas prices jumped after 9/11. Some people I knew began to stock up on can goods and would refuse to spend money on luxuries. etc.. This has to have some effect on a nation.

I like the idea of terrorists disguised as workers. Maybe you could make them to look like the colors of another country. And if that country clicks on him and tells him to do something, he can pretend to do it for a turn and then you can try to send him off again later. And and and... get him inside a city and blow him up. But if the other guy moves military on the same square he kills him and gets mad at you. And then somebody discoverers the great wonder "The War on Terror". And your terrorist factories in your country are disguised as jungles or forrests, and if you catch a terrorist from another country, that is justification to do a little carpet bombing.

\/

 

[Andrew_Jay]

Terrorism has never really had an impact great enough to be featured in Civilization.

That said, there are two possible models:

Units along the lines of the pirate ships in Civ3, but on land they would be far too unbalancing (think of everybody who has tried to make the guerilla a hidden nationality unit).

Make somekind of sabotage of city improvements an option in espionage.

 

[Meleager]

The only way i can think that terrorism could be represented is simple...
People can be unhappy if they are in a country who is attacking another contry of there religion.
They become unhappy and slow down production.
And thats it.

 

[10Seven]

Terrorism has never really had an impact great enough to be featured in Civilization.

Don't tell that to the USA For a pittance, a handfull or few terrorists paralysed one of the world's largest and most prosperous cities. They caused one of the world's most powerful nations to spend in excess of $1trillion dollars on armaments during a time it experiences economic problems, and, to embark on a series of military adventures straining the nation's budget.

How many friends now does the USA have? Fewer, and less good-will than it did.

Terrorism changed the way hundreds of millions of people see the world.

That's how terrorism impacts civilisation.

 

[Afgnwrlrd]

How about invisible barbarians that advance beond horsemen?

 

[Andrew_Jay]

Don't tell that to the USA For a pittance, a handfull or few terrorists paralysed one of the world's largest and most prosperous cities. They caused one of the world's most powerful nations to spend in excess of $1trillion dollars on armaments during a time it experiences economic problems, and, to embark on a series of military adventures straining the nation's budget.

And it's hard to say whether or not this would have happened anyway, and it very well might have.

In Civilization terms, how would you model it?

"Barbarians have destroyed our stock market in New York . . . we are now at war with Babylon"