Terrorism

[Teabeard]

Should this be included in CIV IV? I think it should be possible for the government to sponsor terrorism through the diplomatic screen if the government which initiates the terrorism is either Communist or Theocratic. Otherwise there could be terrorism initiated by insurgents and religious and/or political fanatics (but without the backing of governments). If terrorism is not backed by a government then it has a lesser chance of success, and is usually caused when you occupy a enemy city and the citizens are resisting.

Anything else?

 

[Jon Shafer]

Can you say taboo?

 

[Teabeard]

Can you say taboo?

And enslaving units and razing cities isn't taboo?

 

[KniteFlux]

In the most generic of sense, this is already in Civ3. Disrupting production or initiating propaganda could be viewed as in this category. If this system were to be expanded, I would want to see the ability to sabotage improvements, population, and/or troops in a city. Beyond that, I think including "terrorism" in Civ4 could be too touchy in the US. Rather, I think making the current espionage system more robust could be a solution.

As an example to my point, a few months ago I decided to try playing as a "terrorist" like military tribe in Civ3 Internet play. I tried to do it in a joking around sort of way; I let everyone know I was just playing this way and did not support it IRL. In every game, I received so much hate from everyone just for evening mentioning it. In fact, in one game, most of the people were making racist jokes and other directly inappropriate comments and they thought I was a bad person for just wanting to try out such a play style.

Despite all of this, I agree that I would like to see some overhaul on the espionage system. For one, you should be able to improve or add more actions to your espionage abilities over the course of the game. The one hit or miss intelligence agency found in a non-required tech make it feel awkward to me. Just as you gain various military options over time (infantry type units, to attack units, to siege units, etc), I'd like to see espionage improve in a similar fashion.

 

[Colonel]

This one has been done before try searching a little

 

[Jon Shafer]

And enslaving units and razing cities isn't taboo?

Compared to a shot of a 737 hitting the World Trade Center? No...

 

[Teabeard]

Compared to a shot of a 737 hitting the World Trade Center? No...

Well obviously you wouldn't include imagery of real terror attacks, sheesh. It would be abstract.

 

[Jon Shafer]

It's still taboo. Just like the option of a "Nazi genocide" gameplay option. Not going to happen, maybe in 500 years when living memory wears off and it becomes just a historical happening.

 

[dh_epic]

I think they can find a euphamism, the same way that "Forced Labor" kind of models atrocities and genocide. Or how xenophobia models the effects of Fascism. But you don't ever go into the particulars of extreme cases, because not all fascists or dictators go that far for one, and for two, even if they did, you probably wouldn't want to see it in a game.

Terrorism. How about "non-state guerilla warfare?" How about "international war criminals?" How about "political attacks on civilians?" I'm sure they can come up with something.

But certainly no "World Trade Center" wonder, or a "9/11" event, or an Al Qaeda Civ, or a "hijack plane" command. All of those are too detailed to be in the game anyway, with many other larger concepts or bigger events that have been ignored in the game.

 

[Teabeard]

It's still taboo. Just like the option of a "Nazi genocide" gameplay option. Not going to happen, maybe in 500 years when living memory wears off and it becomes just a historical happening.

Nazi Genocide is already represented though. Convert to Fascism and you will notice many of your citizens disappear.

 

[Teabeard]

I think they can find a euphamism, the same way that "Forced Labor" kind of models atrocities and genocide. Or how xenophobia models the effects of Fascism. But you don't ever go into the particulars of extreme cases, because not all fascists or dictators go that far for one, and for two, even if they did, you probably wouldn't want to see it in a game.

Terrorism. How about "non-state guerilla warfare?" How about "international war criminals?" How about "political attacks on civilians?" I'm sure they can come up with something.

But certainly no "World Trade Center" wonder, or a "9/11" event, or an Al Qaeda Civ, or a "hijack plane" command. All of those are too detailed to be in the game anyway, with many other larger concepts or bigger events that have been ignored in the game.

Good thinking dh. Maybe Terrorists can equal the barbarians of the modern age? I mean, once all the land is claimed barbarians disappear. Forever. How about Barbarians always be around, but they change into terrorists and insurgents instead of the old barbarians? I see nothing wrong with it.

As you point out Xenophobia is already represented, where citizens are murdered. Although really in game terms they aren't murdered but simply disappear in an abstract way. If genocide & slavery can be represented abstractly then surely terrorism can be. As long as it is kept abstract I don't see it offending anyone too much.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Nazi Genocide is already represented though. Convert to Fascism and you will notice many of your citizens disappear.

No, Fascism has "Forced Resettlement."

 

[dh_epic]

I'm happy with forced resettlement as much as I'd be happy with "modern barbarians".

Now what you need is a population model that is flexible enough to reflect civilian targeted attacks. Killing off 1 population point from a 20 population city is pretty extreme, even for a terrorist act.

 

[Teabeard]

I'm happy with forced resettlement as much as I'd be happy with "modern barbarians".

Now what you need is a population model that is flexible enough to reflect civilian targeted attacks. Killing off 1 population point from a 20 population city is pretty extreme, even for a terrorist act.

It should work similar to how bombardment works. Perhaps nothing would happen (attack has failed), or it might injury a unit slightly, or it might destroy a structure or unit, or it might destroy a pop point (consider terrorists using WMD).

The more severe effects would be extremely unlikely, but the chances should be greater if the terrorists in question were government sponsored by a government which has nuclear capabilities.



By the way, Chemical and Biological weapons should be represented in this game in addition to Nukes...

 

[Jon Shafer]

What effect should terrorism have in the game?

On a global scale, it's pretty much ineffectual. A few dozen or hundred or thousand people killed. Hardly makes a difference on a noticeable Civ-scale. The only thing terrorism does is antagonize the country which is attacked. Why would anyone want to do that in a game?

 

[dh_epic]

Well, call it realism, call it "keeping people on their toes", if modern day barbarians make some kind of attack. It could also instigate a kind of "peace weariness", where your people are viciously angry unless you take your agression out on somebody.

It could also instigate global cooperation to take down these modern day barbarians -- of course for this to happen, you'd need to model the conditions that create said modern day barbarians.

Otherwise, you're right, it's mostly a nuisance ... knock someone's economy off its feet, stall productivity a bit, hurt a few people, tamper with peoples' moods... and then get things back on track (hopefully). But that's the point of any barbarian threat, really.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, for my part I would simply be happy if they extended the damage you could do to ongoing production, via espionage, to existing buildings and units. I would also like them to bring back the espionage option of 'Plant Nuclear Device' as well as an option to 'Poison/Biochemical attack' a city.

Beyond that, unit trades would help simulate the financing and arming of rogue organisitions, like the Mujahadeen, UNITA and the Nicuraguan Contra's, and it is possible within the civ3 rules to build a unit that behaves like a 'terrorist', though there is still no way to simulate the reputation loss that should come as a result of funding rogue groups AND building/using terrorist units! Hopefully a better and more editable International Reputation system will be introduced into civ4 to allow this to happen.

Oh, btw Teabeard, why should only Theocracies and Communist states be allowed to fund terrorism? I hate to burst your bubble, but the good ol' US of A has funded and supported terrorist (and/or rogue) groups like UNITA in Angola (which is still terrorising innocent civilians to this day), the Contras in Nicuragua (who again targetted primarily civilians), the Operatives of Pinochet's 'Operation Condor' brigades and Osama Bin Laden and his followers! Not only that, but US businessmen on the East Coast of the United States were frequent contributors to both Sinn Fein AND the IRA!

Back on topic, though, I think DH_Epic has pretty much got it right as far as the effect goes. If a major and/or minor nation commit terrorist attacks against you (and you can PROVE it) then the reputation of the attacking nation should drop very severely, and your people should demand that you cease all further diplomatic ties with them. After that, then your people should start to demand that you strike back, leading to that potential 'Peace Weariness' that DH mentioned!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, one other thing it should effect is your income. One thing I have noticed about terrorism around the world is that, even if it doesn't do much damage physically, it seems to do a great deal of PSYCHOLOGICAL damage, and also seems to harm the economies of frequently targetted nations-and this effect IS significant-just look at Israel's tourism industry at the moment!!
Also, what you have to remember is that terrorist units, like privateers, would have no flag, which means you would have to be able to prove what nation is behind the attacks (probably via direct observation and/or espionage)! This, of course, gives a smaller nation an effective way of harming a bigger power without neccessarily drawing attention to themselves!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Teabeard]

Aussie Lurker, thank you for bringing this up. I had forgotten that in CIV 2 you could plant nukes and do other terrorist acts. If all they do is bring back what they had in CIV 2 regarding terrorism then it would be better represented than as it is now.

Since we now know that in CIV 2 you could do terrorism there should be nothing stopping including it in CIV 4.

And okay, maybe more governments besides Theocracies and Communists engage in terrorist acts, but they do the bulk of it. I don't know, I guess Democracies should be able to build secret agents to work in place of terrorists... I really can't see Democracies planting nukes in any cities though, enemy or not. So I think Democratic sponsored "Terrorists" should be limited from their Theocratic and Communist counterparts.

 

[Zild]

Not only that, but US businessmen on the East Coast of the United States were frequent contributors to both Sinn Fein AND the IRA!

Hallelujah! I was going to make that same point myself. Yes, you heard it right - Americans supported the terrorist bombing of British civilians for years, possibly decades.

Compared to a shot of a 737 hitting the World Trade Center? No...

I'm sorry, but the death of roughly 3000 people in the WTC attacks pales in comparison to mass enslavement of tens of thousands (or more?) for slave labour in ancient times. The major difference is that it happened so long ago that it is no longer taboo. Before 9/11, the concept of hijacking passenger aircraft was not a taboo, and I imagine that with time it will become less of a taboo in the future, at least among some circles (there are obviously those today who coudn't care less, but they don't form one of the major game-playing communities in the world).

I think that some implementations of terrorism would not prove too much of a taboo for Civ4. But I also think that such possibilities could be worked in disuguised as other things. Civ2 had Barbs even in the modern era, when the whole world was settled. These could easily represent insurgents or the like. It also had the "plant nuclear device" and "poison water supply" options for Spies. I don't think these should have been left out from Civ3 - in fact, I wonder if it might have been left out for the primary reason that it is because it is basically goverment-backed terrorism.

I think these ideas should return in Civ4, along with some of the others suggested. The idea of being able to make a bombardment-style attack also reminds me of another idea - civil disorder automatically damaging units present in a city, to varying degrees. I guess the damage from both of these would remain for the next turn (the damage happens after HP is restored at the end of the turn), otherwise they might have little effect on the outcome of the game.

Personally, I think that spies completely desroying buildings and units is perfectly reasonable, and would represent activities like car-bombings. I think it might be wise to stop short of suicide bombings, be it for political reasons or simply so that you don't lose your lovely spy...

Some people could just as easily argue that the inclusion of nuclear weapons in the game is a taboo (Japan has a very large game-playing community). Even core concepts like Facism and razing cities are taboos to an extent. (Yet starving out a city's population is completely reasonable in terms of game reputation!)