I think players should have teh option to build terrorist units. However, these aren't specifically terror units as such. Rather, any time *any* unit is built, the player has teh option to designate it as a barbarian unit. He can give it a set of go to orders (with waypoints) as a one-time deployment command, but after that, the barbarian civ ai takes over.
Terrorism
- Thread starter Teabeard
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker said:
This seems like a good point to me - Civ3 already allows what some would regard as sponsored terrorism through the Privateers. I don't think these have been represented entirely accurately by Firaxis, but I do think the way they have been included is good in terms of gameplay. In fact, I'm a little surprised that there is only one unit in the game with this capability.
Being able to build units as barbarians strikes me as an interesting tactic, which could have some fun consequences. My only concern with the implementation suggested is that it does not seem to allow for transport via air or water, which seems a bit of a shame to me.
What do you think of this an alternative? When units are disbanded, they become barbarians. This can be used to create barbarians as discussed above. But it could also represent units that have become mercenaries after being withdrawn from service (acting for the smaller groups at sub-civ level). If the unit id disbanded as a result of insufficient funding, it could be seen as a unit rebelling against its nation. This could have particularly devastating effects if the unit is currently garrisoned in a city!
Ivan the Kulak
King
Well, the state sponsored terrorism thing would be just like building hidden nationality units and sending them out to harass other civs, which you can do now.
I wouldn't mind some modern barbarian units labelled insurgent and terrorist with special attacks showing up occasionally. I would also like to see the occasional barbarian guerilla or three pop up near a newly conquered city, or from city sites that you have razed, and attack. The chance of this could be based on the enemy's type of government.
The C3C guerilla would be an excellent choice for this, I would mod its stats to be very weak on defense, medium on attack, going for the pillage on your improvements and grabbing workers. I would give it 2 move points, ignore move cost on all terrain. If Civ4 permits, give it some other special abilities also, like if it can move next to a city, it can sabotage improvements.
I wouldn't mind some modern barbarian units labelled insurgent and terrorist with special attacks showing up occasionally. I would also like to see the occasional barbarian guerilla or three pop up near a newly conquered city, or from city sites that you have razed, and attack. The chance of this could be based on the enemy's type of government.
The C3C guerilla would be an excellent choice for this, I would mod its stats to be very weak on defense, medium on attack, going for the pillage on your improvements and grabbing workers. I would give it 2 move points, ignore move cost on all terrain. If Civ4 permits, give it some other special abilities also, like if it can move next to a city, it can sabotage improvements.
This is, simpy having specific hidden nationality units as we do now doesnt quite reflect reality. These units are, with the exception of commando type special force units, outside the governemnt's control, so it doesn't make sense for teh player to have direct control. Second, there isn't any logical reason why any unit type couldn't be funded by a government covertly.
I want player built barbarians, and spy units / special forces to reflect the government controlled (as opposed to merely funded) dirty tricks campaigns.
I want player built barbarians, and spy units / special forces to reflect the government controlled (as opposed to merely funded) dirty tricks campaigns.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Perhaps certain barbarian groups could contact you asking for funding / support. Supporting them would reduce the likelihood that they cause a nuisance to you, but also increases the likelihood that they strike someone else. And if someone uses intelligence to discover you've been funding terrorism... international incident.
But state sponsored terrorism has a name -- it's called guerilla warfare when it's a war on the downlow. And it's called espionage when it's an attack on citizens on the downlow.
But state sponsored terrorism has a name -- it's called guerilla warfare when it's a war on the downlow. And it's called espionage when it's an attack on citizens on the downlow.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
My goodness, you've just reiterated my point!Zild said:
Yes, it's taboo because it just happened. 3000 people is nothing compared to tens or hundreds of thousands or millions.
But that doesn't make it any less taboo or any more likely to be in the game.
Trip said:My goodness, you've just reiterated my point!
Yes, it's taboo because it just happened. 3000 people is nothing compared to tens or hundreds of thousands or millions.
But that doesn't make it any less taboo or any more likely to be in the game.
That I agree with entirely
Refering to Ivan the Kulak's thread - in Civ2, the Guerilla was exactly that. After a certain point in the game (I always assumed it to be the discovery of guerilla warfare, for obvious reasons, but never had absolute proof) whenever a city was captured it would create a number of Guerillas (seemed to be roughly one per two population points), which could be troublesome to remove. They would sit on the terrain so that you couldn't use it, and pillage your improvements. The notable difference is that they belonged to the player who owned the city, they weren't barbs.
Personally, I think Guerillas have been created innacurately in terms of stats in both Civ2 and Civ3, and I disagree with your opinion that they should be attack heavy (nothing personal
). Guerillas might not be that good at defending themselves in combat, but they are typically good at hiding. When the conquering military tries to seek them out, they lay traps that can really soften up the attacker. I completely agree that they can be very destructive on the offense as well, often through the use of such traps, but I think their true power lies in the fact that they can sit in the terrain and make occasional hit-and-run attacks and are almost impossible to iradicate. (I must admit I'm thinking typically of VC guerillas here, although it seems to appy elsewhere.) This is why I believe they should be very good at defence - that said, I'd hate to see them used as city-defenders, that's uncharacteristic, so I'd be in favour of something like halving their defence stat when defending cities (and maybe even forts). But their ability to attack should no be underestimated either. Perhaps a bombardment-style attack (ideally one which allows them to kill units, like the Korean Hwacka (sp?)) would be a good way to represent their hit-and-run offensive tactics in Civ3? Whether or not this would be relevant to Civ4, I have no idea...I'm not sure where I stand on movement, but I know the Civ2 Guerillas had a move of 1, but treated all terrain as roads (under Civ2 rules, this meant they could move up to three squares per turn, but if they moved and attacked they would attack at 2/3 or 1/3 strength - a concept I'm glad they removed!)
In fact, I think it might be appropriate to see more use of hit-and-run units in an appropriate manner in Civ3 in general (I don't agree with the Civ2 or Civ3 combat method in general, but I good god, I love the game!)
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
As a side topic, guerillas should be perhaps better at hiding, and experience a city-defence bonus even when outside a city. You know, the kind of defence bonus you get from city walls.
Guerilla warfare is pretty hard to defeat in real life, although that doesn't mean it's easy for guerillas to win.
Guerilla warfare is pretty hard to defeat in real life, although that doesn't mean it's easy for guerillas to win.
dh_epic said:
This sounds good to me, actually. They'd have, say, a defensive value a little lower than the average unit of the time (in Civ3, maybe 7 or 8 compared to Infantry's 10), but they would ALWAYS receive the 50% basic city wall / fort bonus. This makes them stronger in the countryside, but since the bonus is not applied a second time when in a fort or city, they are weaker in that role. (What I meant before was that the units would not characteristically be used to defend a whole city from an attacker, but would emerge afterwards and make life hell in the surrounding area). However, in towns without walls, would they keep their 50% standard bonus or lose it entirely? I'm in favour of the latter, for the reasons above...
For making it hard for them to attack, I hope the bombardment-type attack would work for that. Actually, to add to my previous comments, rather than have a Hwacka (can kill) style attack, perhaps they could have a normal bombardment attack in addition to a normal attack. That way, a few Guerillas can use bombardment attacks to soften up the enemy, before a Guerilla unit takes on the weakened forces in face-to-face combat - with the obvious point that they might lose!
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
While Guerillas wouldn't get any additional bonus from being in a city, they shouldn't lose their bonus in a city without walls. Urban Guerilla warfare is terrifying. Have you ever seen Full Metal Jacket? Even the situation in Iraq is awful having to face Urban Guerilla warfare. I imagine that even in a city with walls, they don't gain protection from walls, but still from their tactics of remaining "small" and hard to find, sniping from windows, hiding in houses, attacking large groups with one or two soldiers, enough to inflict casualties, and then run. That is the essence of guerilla warfare.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
If you go through the idea of terrorism you reach a connection to the idea of having independence from something: either political independence or economical and military independence. So terrorist actions should affect basically this matters......
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, slightly O/T, but this notion of Terrorism now being Taboo just because of 9/11 REALLY irks me!! I mean, practically every nation on Earth-with the possible exception of Canada, Australia and NZ-have all had to endure some kind of terrorist attacks over the last century. Hell, European nations have been tackling right and left-wing terrorism since the late '50s, yet the game designers never considered the idea off-limits then. However, now that the US has fallen victim, we're suddenly supposed to treat the issue with kid gloves?! Sorry, for me that is JUST no excuse not to bring some hard-edged realism to the game world! If that doesn't convince, though, then I will simply say: 'its just a game!'
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
The big difference between terrorist attacks on the United States (or more exactly, 9/11 since we've had terrorist attacks before) and the terrorist attacks in Europe is that America is actually trying to effectively do something about it. Ironically, I think the inclussion of terrorism would be a big hit in America and no so much in Europe. Simple matter of Americans, in actively deconstructing the environment that allows terrorism to thrive, feeling empowered while various Europeans (be it a train bombing in Madrid or the French finding yet more ETP weapons caches in its own territory) would feel more disempowered. You'll find much more animosity towards a "terroism" system for Civ4 in Norther Ireland than you will in New York City.
Having said that, I am mildly surprised that no one has sugested that any rioting city might have a small chance of producing "terrorist" units that are computer controlled. Such units would attack whoever they feel responcible for their strife (if it is war weariness caused by an agressive neighbor, they get the bombs. If it is a power hungry government, they 'splode). Perhaps as a side effect of some advancements normal cities could even produce such units, depending on how many unhappy citizens it has.
I fully support the ideas of having civ controlled terrorist units. Perhaps give them a quasi-hidden nationality ability. Attacking with them wont cause war but it does decrease a civs opinion of you. Similarly, governments should be able to support "terrorist" networks (yes, America has supported terrorist groups in the past, as has France, Germany, England, Russia, etc ...I am not sure about Spain) but I suppose that would have to be primarily through monetary means (unless Civ4 seperates troops from their equipment, allowing countries to engage in arms sales).
Having said that, I am mildly surprised that no one has sugested that any rioting city might have a small chance of producing "terrorist" units that are computer controlled. Such units would attack whoever they feel responcible for their strife (if it is war weariness caused by an agressive neighbor, they get the bombs. If it is a power hungry government, they 'splode). Perhaps as a side effect of some advancements normal cities could even produce such units, depending on how many unhappy citizens it has.
I fully support the ideas of having civ controlled terrorist units. Perhaps give them a quasi-hidden nationality ability. Attacking with them wont cause war but it does decrease a civs opinion of you. Similarly, governments should be able to support "terrorist" networks (yes, America has supported terrorist groups in the past, as has France, Germany, England, Russia, etc ...I am not sure about Spain) but I suppose that would have to be primarily through monetary means (unless Civ4 seperates troops from their equipment, allowing countries to engage in arms sales).
Hugin said:
Do you have any idea at all how incredibly insulting this is to all Europeans? Just because European governments tend to treat terrorism as a police rather than a military matter, it doesn't mean they don't effectively do anything about it.
It is posts like yours that make me look for the ignore button on message boards.
@dh_epic: Quite right - I think I was totally wrong if I suggested that they should get no bonus in cities without walls (not sure if that's what I meant or not, actually)
I agree with Aussie_Lurker - as far as I see the only major difference between 9/11 and (first example that springs to mind) the Tokyo underground gas attack is that on 9/11 3000 or so innocent people died in one go. This doesn't make it any different from 300 attacks killing 10 people at a time, which is more akin to the kind of situation (not necessarily the actual numbers) that resulted from the Northern Ireland troubles.
Despite being British, I was more shocked/upset/angered by 9/11 for the simple reason that it was so many more people. I couldn't care what nationality the people were (and as a slight reminder, they weren't just Americans - about 100 of the people killed that day were British).
Hugin, I think your post is completely unjustified and innaccurate. Just because the British response to the IRA wasn't "let's go bomb the paddies!", it doesn't mean there were not efforts to stop further attacks. Those efforts included covert operations of a variety of forms to reduce the effectiveness and likelihood of any future attacks, the early release of IRA terrorists, and a strong focus on bringing all of the parties into diplomatic talks that have actually gotten somewhere.
Whilst I don't agree that people who attempt to commit murder for political reasons should be released from prison, and whilst it is a shame that the easiest way to get people to talk is to blow up innocent civilians, I'll be the first to admit that the combined efforts of the British people (and other parties involved) have achieved what appears to be a lasting end to the conflict. Perhaps if the response of the US was to start talking rather than bombing anybody who happens to live in the same part of the world, the terrorist threat would be less of a problem than it was before 9/11, not more.
My apologies for leaving out the many other nations who have effectively combatted terrorism - I'm limiting myself to the example I know best.
(And yes, I still agree with the war, but for other reasons).
I agree with Aussie_Lurker - as far as I see the only major difference between 9/11 and (first example that springs to mind) the Tokyo underground gas attack is that on 9/11 3000 or so innocent people died in one go. This doesn't make it any different from 300 attacks killing 10 people at a time, which is more akin to the kind of situation (not necessarily the actual numbers) that resulted from the Northern Ireland troubles.
Despite being British, I was more shocked/upset/angered by 9/11 for the simple reason that it was so many more people. I couldn't care what nationality the people were (and as a slight reminder, they weren't just Americans - about 100 of the people killed that day were British).
Hugin, I think your post is completely unjustified and innaccurate. Just because the British response to the IRA wasn't "let's go bomb the paddies!", it doesn't mean there were not efforts to stop further attacks. Those efforts included covert operations of a variety of forms to reduce the effectiveness and likelihood of any future attacks, the early release of IRA terrorists, and a strong focus on bringing all of the parties into diplomatic talks that have actually gotten somewhere.
Whilst I don't agree that people who attempt to commit murder for political reasons should be released from prison, and whilst it is a shame that the easiest way to get people to talk is to blow up innocent civilians, I'll be the first to admit that the combined efforts of the British people (and other parties involved) have achieved what appears to be a lasting end to the conflict. Perhaps if the response of the US was to start talking rather than bombing anybody who happens to live in the same part of the world, the terrorist threat would be less of a problem than it was before 9/11, not more.
My apologies for leaving out the many other nations who have effectively combatted terrorism - I'm limiting myself to the example I know best.
(And yes, I still agree with the war, but for other reasons).
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
I don't know if someone has done it already, but i have edited the bic file adding various units. One of these units i downloaded from the civ units forum is the Separatist (used as terrorist):
I have given it hidden nationality, and stealth so that it can attack any unit, and bombard ability too, so that it can inflict damage, and if lucky, destroy buildings. And believe me, you don't want to have such units harrassing your country because go afterwards and figure out who is sending these units!!!
As for the guerilla, i have given it also hidden nationality and treat all terrain like roads, but without the stealth or bombard ability
I have given it hidden nationality, and stealth so that it can attack any unit, and bombard ability too, so that it can inflict damage, and if lucky, destroy buildings. And believe me, you don't want to have such units harrassing your country
because go afterwards and figure out who is sending these units!!!As for the guerilla, i have given it also hidden nationality and treat all terrain like roads, but without the stealth or bombard ability
The more I think about bombard, the more I think it works well - you could attack a city for 20 turns (20 years, towards the end) with a single unit, and perhaps only cause the destruction of a building or two, and some short-term damage to military units.
This seems to reflect the fact that successful terrorist attacks (particularly against the same target) are quite infrequent.
This seems to reflect the fact that successful terrorist attacks (particularly against the same target) are quite infrequent.
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Zild said:
It does reflect it, especially when you have several of these units bombarding your city, and you notice that you've lost some pop, some units are damaged, your barracks or harbor has been destroyed... or worse, they just destroy your unique access to a vital resource, and there is nothing you could do about it, except to find who's behind this mess...
In one of my games, i managed to slow down the main power's economy and growth, until i was able to catch up, and until some other civ adopted the same strategy against me!
But all you need to do is make this unit a bit expensive in terms of building, and cost like 2 to 3 gpt for maintenance, so that all civs don't just over-build these units. Then it would be total chaos1
And guys, please do keep in mind that this is just a darn game, and nobody should feel attacked or insulted if a unit is called terrorist or whatever else.
Ivan the Kulak
King
Zild, the guerilla would show up in Civ2 when guerilla wafare was discovered, not sure who it had to be by though, anyone, or the player, or the enemy civ. Also, once it was discovered, many of the barbarians would be partisans, as they were named in Civ2. These were extremely pesky, pillaging anything they could get to, and that was a lot, with the ignore move cost flag...
As far as attack heavy for Civ4 guerillas, I didn't mean in relation to modern military units, I meant in relation to its defense capability. For example, if I were to implement a different guerilla in Civ3, I would use these stats:
Available with Mass Production, or Motorized Transport, something a bit later then the WWI era Replaceable Parts tech. A good thing with a new tech tree would be to introduce a new postcolonial tech that would allow these.
Attack: 6
Defense: 3
Move Points: 2
Ignore terrain move cost.
Bombard: Low attack, low firepower.
Using these, you can see that it would be no match for any modern unit. It could get lucky against infantry occasionally, but other than that it would have to pick on older units. If a conventional military unit happened upon it and attacked, it would almost certainly be destroyed, as in real life. Historically, any major battle between guerillas and regular army forces has resulted in the defeat of the guerillas. The bombard should be fairly weak, but enough to knock a hit point or 2 off of units and perhaps destroy the odd improvement. They already have a defensive bombard in C3C, IIRC. The real power behind these would be their ability to slip into a civs borders, pillage, or bombard from a nearby mountain, and slip away into rough terrain. Another interesting idea would be to have them enslave workers, and convert them into guerillas as well.
I'm not sure how these could be balanced in the game. As others have pointed out, the AI will build hidden nationality units and send them in quantity against you, without ever declaring war, a big disadvantage if you need allies. Maybe building these should be an automatic rep hit, and there should be a Raid Enemy Intellligence HQ mission where you can find out who is sending them, how many, and where they are. You can demand that it stop or declare war if successful, just as with border incursions.
The player should be limited in the ability to have large forces of these as well. One way would be that rather than build them, they must be drafted, and ONLY from conquered cities. They would represent foreign citizens who were angry at their former government, and wanted to take up arms against them. You could only draft guerillas from cities with foreign pop still in them, and the draft unhappiness penalty would still apply. Joining a foreign worker to your own city and drafting it as a guerilla would be prohibited.
I like the idea of late game barbs that contact you and ask for support. For 500 gold or so they would promise to go after the enemy you specify; however, that would not be a sure thing, as barbarians/partisans/terrorists have their own agendas. It would ensure that they would not attack you as they now view you as a possible future source of funding.
As far as attack heavy for Civ4 guerillas, I didn't mean in relation to modern military units, I meant in relation to its defense capability. For example, if I were to implement a different guerilla in Civ3, I would use these stats:
Available with Mass Production, or Motorized Transport, something a bit later then the WWI era Replaceable Parts tech. A good thing with a new tech tree would be to introduce a new postcolonial tech that would allow these.
Attack: 6
Defense: 3
Move Points: 2
Ignore terrain move cost.
Bombard: Low attack, low firepower.
Using these, you can see that it would be no match for any modern unit. It could get lucky against infantry occasionally, but other than that it would have to pick on older units. If a conventional military unit happened upon it and attacked, it would almost certainly be destroyed, as in real life. Historically, any major battle between guerillas and regular army forces has resulted in the defeat of the guerillas. The bombard should be fairly weak, but enough to knock a hit point or 2 off of units and perhaps destroy the odd improvement. They already have a defensive bombard in C3C, IIRC. The real power behind these would be their ability to slip into a civs borders, pillage, or bombard from a nearby mountain, and slip away into rough terrain. Another interesting idea would be to have them enslave workers, and convert them into guerillas as well.
I'm not sure how these could be balanced in the game. As others have pointed out, the AI will build hidden nationality units and send them in quantity against you, without ever declaring war, a big disadvantage if you need allies. Maybe building these should be an automatic rep hit, and there should be a Raid Enemy Intellligence HQ mission where you can find out who is sending them, how many, and where they are. You can demand that it stop or declare war if successful, just as with border incursions.
The player should be limited in the ability to have large forces of these as well. One way would be that rather than build them, they must be drafted, and ONLY from conquered cities. They would represent foreign citizens who were angry at their former government, and wanted to take up arms against them. You could only draft guerillas from cities with foreign pop still in them, and the draft unhappiness penalty would still apply. Joining a foreign worker to your own city and drafting it as a guerilla would be prohibited.
I like the idea of late game barbs that contact you and ask for support. For 500 gold or so they would promise to go after the enemy you specify; however, that would not be a sure thing, as barbarians/partisans/terrorists have their own agendas. It would ensure that they would not attack you as they now view you as a possible future source of funding.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Rhialto is one I agree with, and I'll only add this to the matter: the war on terrorism is as much a military war as it is a war focused on "PR". I'm going to stay to the point to avoid turning this into a political discussion -- this has everything to do with gameplay.
One president -- I won't name names -- once said, while he was Governor. "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us... I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the 'ugly American' is for us to go around the world saying 'We do it this way, so should you'." Feel free to ask me who said that, if you really want to know.
Terrorists are beyond reason, and thus to kill them is very reasonable. But there are moderates in these nations who are too concerned with their daily lives to get caught up in some ideology of hate. But the most dangerous thing you can do in fighting terrorism is to turn these moderates from mildly skeptical of a powerful nation into someone who absolutely HATES the powerful nation. This happens when you give the terrorists more evidence to support their ideology -- every mistake, every shred of collatoral damage encourages more terrorism. The terrorist will say to the moderate "Why are you standing idly by? There's a reason your life is hard. You're working hard, but you can't get ahead. There's a nation that blew up your hospital, your school, and your family. They claimed it was in the name of freedom. We know they are liars, and they need to be held accountable. Join us."
But all the same, Hugin is right to point out that rioting and unhappiness can potentially produce an AI-controlled terrorist. The war on terror is two-fold: killing the terrorists, and improving the life of moderates who WANT to believe in freedom and peace but sometimes think the terrorists have a point. In Civ this is as simple as keeping citizens happy. (Too bad it isn't this simple in the real world.)
In that sense, a LOT of nations are trying to do a lot of things about international terrorism.
On a seperate note, I think bombard-like functionality is pretty valuable. Especially if that bombard functionality can be used to target wonders or small wonders. Some terrorists only go after civilians, whereas the most wily terrorists go after the economic or productivity lifeforce of the Nation they oppose.
One president -- I won't name names -- once said, while he was Governor. "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us... I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the 'ugly American' is for us to go around the world saying 'We do it this way, so should you'." Feel free to ask me who said that, if you really want to know.
Terrorists are beyond reason, and thus to kill them is very reasonable. But there are moderates in these nations who are too concerned with their daily lives to get caught up in some ideology of hate. But the most dangerous thing you can do in fighting terrorism is to turn these moderates from mildly skeptical of a powerful nation into someone who absolutely HATES the powerful nation. This happens when you give the terrorists more evidence to support their ideology -- every mistake, every shred of collatoral damage encourages more terrorism. The terrorist will say to the moderate "Why are you standing idly by? There's a reason your life is hard. You're working hard, but you can't get ahead. There's a nation that blew up your hospital, your school, and your family. They claimed it was in the name of freedom. We know they are liars, and they need to be held accountable. Join us."
But all the same, Hugin is right to point out that rioting and unhappiness can potentially produce an AI-controlled terrorist. The war on terror is two-fold: killing the terrorists, and improving the life of moderates who WANT to believe in freedom and peace but sometimes think the terrorists have a point. In Civ this is as simple as keeping citizens happy. (Too bad it isn't this simple in the real world.)
In that sense, a LOT of nations are trying to do a lot of things about international terrorism.
On a seperate note, I think bombard-like functionality is pretty valuable. Especially if that bombard functionality can be used to target wonders or small wonders. Some terrorists only go after civilians, whereas the most wily terrorists go after the economic or productivity lifeforce of the Nation they oppose.
Similar threads
