Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
dh_epic said:
You really think that terrorism doesnt have a reason to be made??????
Terrorism
- Thread starter Teabeard
- Start date
You really think that terrorism doesnt have a reason to be made??????
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
What effects should it have in the game?
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
The effects of terrorism should be the ocasionally destrution of city improvements and military units, as well as kills of innocent citizens.....(maybe the last one is a little bad calculated, because acts of regurarlly acts of terrorism doesnt kill "one" citizen, that are much people...)
If the Terrorism will be included in civ4, then they have to include too, counter-terrorism, like having special military units and/or buildings that reduce the possibilty of terrorist actions.
If the Terrorism will be included in civ4, then they have to include too, counter-terrorism, like having special military units and/or buildings that reduce the possibilty of terrorist actions.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
What does that really add to the game?
The ability to blow up improvements? Big deal. There's already sabotage in Civ 3 and "counter-terrorism" aspects in the ability to expose enemy spies.
Terrorism doesn't make logical sense to include in a game like Civ 3. You either model it too strong or you model it accurately and there's no reason why anyone would want to use it. What, should Firaxis include elections so that these terrorist acts might impact an election like in Spain? There is no worthwhile civ-scale effects that could be modelled properly.
The ability to blow up improvements? Big deal. There's already sabotage in Civ 3 and "counter-terrorism" aspects in the ability to expose enemy spies.
Terrorism doesn't make logical sense to include in a game like Civ 3. You either model it too strong or you model it accurately and there's no reason why anyone would want to use it. What, should Firaxis include elections so that these terrorist acts might impact an election like in Spain? There is no worthwhile civ-scale effects that could be modelled properly.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'm not saying that terrorists don't have a reason to be made. That's like saying terrorism isn't caused by anything. I'm just saying that you can't convince a terrorist to stop being a terrorist, short of letting them kill who it is they want to kill, and oppress who they want to oppress.
But you CAN convince a moderate living next door to a terrorist supporter that terrorism is a bad idea. Or, moreover, you can prevent them from getting convinced -- if their life is good, they have a family and a career to live for, then no terrorist is going to be able to convince them to blow civilians up for a political purpose.
Terrorists should be an effect in of itself. They shouldn't exist just for the sake of it, randomly, but they should appear because of certain social circumstances. (In Civ terms, this would be extreme levels of unhappiness, and high levels of civilian casualties.) Once the terrorists appear, you've already failed, in a sense, and you now have to deal with somebody who can pillage improvements, destroy buildings, maybe even kill civilians (although 1 population point is a little too much by Civ 3 standards).
But you CAN convince a moderate living next door to a terrorist supporter that terrorism is a bad idea. Or, moreover, you can prevent them from getting convinced -- if their life is good, they have a family and a career to live for, then no terrorist is going to be able to convince them to blow civilians up for a political purpose.
Terrorists should be an effect in of itself. They shouldn't exist just for the sake of it, randomly, but they should appear because of certain social circumstances. (In Civ terms, this would be extreme levels of unhappiness, and high levels of civilian casualties.) Once the terrorists appear, you've already failed, in a sense, and you now have to deal with somebody who can pillage improvements, destroy buildings, maybe even kill civilians (although 1 population point is a little too much by Civ 3 standards).
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
Trip said:
But the terrorist actions act as randomly acts of vandalism, not specified choosed acts, like the ones you sugested....
But, of course, its now SO randomly. There should be two types of terrorism: the fist type was agaisnt his own country and agaisnt his own culture. The secound type was agaisnt a civ that conquer another one, with difetent cultures, like the war in Iraq, for example. Let's "think" that the USA conquered Iraq (atention, i said THINK, its not the reality) and now, there are much acts of terrorism throught the country, agaisnt the USA.
majk-iii
Eeh?
would'nt it be better if the smallest and weakest civ (maybe even in anarchy) could build a cheap small wonder ("the ideological an finacial base of resistance") that acts like an industrial-time knights templar. (or al qaida, witch means "the base")
...That would create a free cruise missile-like unit every turn until it's destroyed.
Like i said only the weakest civ could build it, until another civ is the weakest and builds it's own, then the first one would stop producing.
Maybe you would have to be at war or in anarchy.
Then again maybe it's enough to just diversify the barbarians in civ 4... and then leave it alone?
...That would create a free cruise missile-like unit every turn until it's destroyed.
Like i said only the weakest civ could build it, until another civ is the weakest and builds it's own, then the first one would stop producing.
Maybe you would have to be at war or in anarchy.
Then again maybe it's enough to just diversify the barbarians in civ 4... and then leave it alone?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'm more of a fan of terrorists being modern day barbarians. This idea of building a "terrorist unit" that you use to invade a city is redundant (they're called guerillas, if not any soldier). Building a terrorist unit that causes some kind of destruction without any invasion, well, that's a lot more like a Civ 2 "spy" unit.
Terrorists are units that you pop up that you can't control. e.g.: barbarians.
To complement Pedro's notion, the idea is that it would occur in extremely unhappy situations. Either against the ruler of the nation (e.g.: Timothy McVeigh versus America), or appearing in a crappy (unhappy) part of the world to attack a world superpower (e.g.: Osama Bin Laden versus America).
Terrorists are units that you pop up that you can't control. e.g.: barbarians.
To complement Pedro's notion, the idea is that it would occur in extremely unhappy situations. Either against the ruler of the nation (e.g.: Timothy McVeigh versus America), or appearing in a crappy (unhappy) part of the world to attack a world superpower (e.g.: Osama Bin Laden versus America).
I most humbly apologize. It appears I was much harsher than I intended to be and so once again, my apologies.
But, Rhialto, you specifically stated my point. Europeans treat terrorism as police matter. Police are fundamentally a reactionary institution (in most governments, that is). Terrorists have to at least plan an attack before there is anything that the police can do to counter it. The current American approach, on the other hand, is to change the very factors that play a large role in producing terrorists (that is, oppression, social inequality, and perceived social inequality). These are what one might call pro-active. America is attempting to stop terrorists before they even become terrorists. The police can only deal with terrorists after they have become terrorists.
@Zild , you may not that I merely said there would be more opposition to a terrorist feature in N. Ireland than in America, I didn't say why (I thought it fairly obvious). America has only lived a brief while with terrorism and currently it appears that we are making progress against it. The violence in N. Ireland has been going on for much longer and to far greater degrees than America has yet experienced. Similarly, Ireland (and with Ireland, Britain) has been trying to stop terrorism in the area for much longer than America has even considered the word "terrorism" as part of its every day vocabulary. Terrorist attacks by the IRA wont stop, however, till the social climate of the area changes. As I said above, fighting terrorism isn't about stopping terrorist from bombing schools; it is about stopping terrorists before they become terrorists. Diplomatic negotiations are good, but can the leaders of the various groups vouch for the feelings of all their members? Even if the IRA officially disbands and its leaders take on Ghandi-like personalities, there will still be individuals that believe violence is the only answer.
As a random side note, America has been talking but talking without action is useless. Take a look at how many human rights violations have been coming out of the Middle East for the last 4 years. You'll notice that there are fewer after Afghanistan was freed, and fewer still after Iraq was conquered in one of the most bloodless wars (yes, bloodless) in history. Perhaps it is a coincidence. Or perhaps I have just talked to too many Christian missionaries in Iran, Syria, and so forth. Hardliner Islamic governments are terrified that the world (America isn't as alone as it oft-times seems) will overthrow them. Is fear good? Fear caused many small old-conservativistic European states to accept some liberal ideas in order to prevent bloody revolutions. It isn't the most desirable weapon to use against terrorism, but if fear can break its shell then we can only hope compassion will do the rest.
It should also be noted that America isn't trying to turn the rest of the world into quasi-Americans. Currently, we are trying to obtain world safety and to that end we have brought freedom to two nations. Is freedom only limited to America? I would suspect most Europeans would disagree, they have freedom too. And if freedom is good enough for us, and if we truly believe it best, then how can we do anything less than make it available for other people? Is there a difference between the lives of Americans and Iraqis? Is there a difference between the value of any single person's life and the value of anyone elses life? If we believe we deserve freedom then how can we do anything else than believe others deserve it as well?
But, Rhialto, you specifically stated my point. Europeans treat terrorism as police matter. Police are fundamentally a reactionary institution (in most governments, that is). Terrorists have to at least plan an attack before there is anything that the police can do to counter it. The current American approach, on the other hand, is to change the very factors that play a large role in producing terrorists (that is, oppression, social inequality, and perceived social inequality). These are what one might call pro-active. America is attempting to stop terrorists before they even become terrorists. The police can only deal with terrorists after they have become terrorists.
@Zild , you may not that I merely said there would be more opposition to a terrorist feature in N. Ireland than in America, I didn't say why (I thought it fairly obvious). America has only lived a brief while with terrorism and currently it appears that we are making progress against it. The violence in N. Ireland has been going on for much longer and to far greater degrees than America has yet experienced. Similarly, Ireland (and with Ireland, Britain) has been trying to stop terrorism in the area for much longer than America has even considered the word "terrorism" as part of its every day vocabulary. Terrorist attacks by the IRA wont stop, however, till the social climate of the area changes. As I said above, fighting terrorism isn't about stopping terrorist from bombing schools; it is about stopping terrorists before they become terrorists. Diplomatic negotiations are good, but can the leaders of the various groups vouch for the feelings of all their members? Even if the IRA officially disbands and its leaders take on Ghandi-like personalities, there will still be individuals that believe violence is the only answer.
As a random side note, America has been talking but talking without action is useless. Take a look at how many human rights violations have been coming out of the Middle East for the last 4 years. You'll notice that there are fewer after Afghanistan was freed, and fewer still after Iraq was conquered in one of the most bloodless wars (yes, bloodless) in history. Perhaps it is a coincidence. Or perhaps I have just talked to too many Christian missionaries in Iran, Syria, and so forth. Hardliner Islamic governments are terrified that the world (America isn't as alone as it oft-times seems) will overthrow them. Is fear good? Fear caused many small old-conservativistic European states to accept some liberal ideas in order to prevent bloody revolutions. It isn't the most desirable weapon to use against terrorism, but if fear can break its shell then we can only hope compassion will do the rest.
It should also be noted that America isn't trying to turn the rest of the world into quasi-Americans. Currently, we are trying to obtain world safety and to that end we have brought freedom to two nations. Is freedom only limited to America? I would suspect most Europeans would disagree, they have freedom too. And if freedom is good enough for us, and if we truly believe it best, then how can we do anything less than make it available for other people? Is there a difference between the lives of Americans and Iraqis? Is there a difference between the value of any single person's life and the value of anyone elses life? If we believe we deserve freedom then how can we do anything else than believe others deserve it as well?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
With all due respect, if we're trying to stop terrorists before they're even created by reducing the conditions that empower terrorist recruitment, we're doing a really crappy job.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796
But if we're trying to kill terrorists AFTER they've been created, then we're doing a halfway decent job, if you don't count the number of moderates who went from "mildly skeptical" to "furious" with America. (But if you just focus on the terrorists who've gone from "Furious" to "Furious and plotting", or from "Furious" to "Furious and Dead", we're doing a decent job.)
We'd probably be doing better if we credibly justified our pre-emptive action, condemned torture, had enough troops on the ground to prevent looting and immigration of new terrorists, not disbanded the former republican guard, not turned allies away who wanted to help with Nation building, and kept weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people who could actually get them. Each one of these mistakes has empowered the terrorists.
But if you don't count all that, then yes, we're doing a better job than Europe in reducing the amount of Terrorism.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796
But if we're trying to kill terrorists AFTER they've been created, then we're doing a halfway decent job, if you don't count the number of moderates who went from "mildly skeptical" to "furious" with America. (But if you just focus on the terrorists who've gone from "Furious" to "Furious and plotting", or from "Furious" to "Furious and Dead", we're doing a decent job.)
We'd probably be doing better if we credibly justified our pre-emptive action, condemned torture, had enough troops on the ground to prevent looting and immigration of new terrorists, not disbanded the former republican guard, not turned allies away who wanted to help with Nation building, and kept weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people who could actually get them. Each one of these mistakes has empowered the terrorists.
But if you don't count all that, then yes, we're doing a better job than Europe in reducing the amount of Terrorism.
Hugin said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the attacks by the IRA have stopped, as of many years ago... Whilst there have been some splinter groups, they don't seem to have caused any real level of disruption that I can recall...
The PIRA, which holds an opinion opposite to that of the IRA, had caused a bit of trouble after the IRA calmed down, but nothing from them for a long time either.
The problem in N. Ireland is that there are terrorists directly for a certain course of action, and terrorists directly against it. Bringing the IRA to the point where they ceased to make terrorist attacks gave the PIRA a reason to act (or, perhaps, to form - I'm not sure if the PIRA were around long before that time or not). I think that what made it worse was that by saying "the terrorist acts committed by the IRA have made us talk about the problem", you have signalled to other groups that blowing people up actually does can get you somewhere...
This is considerably different than the situation faced by the US, and harder to deal with in some ways because of that. It would probably be equivalent to the US saying "okay, we'll pull out of Iraq - we've had more terrorism than we can take", and then a new group of terrorists starting to attack the US because they want them to remain...
I would suggest splitting each of N. Ireland and Iraq into two (or more) parts - one for those who want Britain / the Coalition (delete as appropriate) to remain, and one for those who want them to leave. But then, it was a similar kind of approach that created India and Pakistan (along with Bangladesh, of course) - two now-nuclear powers who were on the brink of war a few years ago.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
The question is that terrorists couldn't be represented by modern barbarians, because barbarians make battle, and terrorist don't do that.
Comrade Pedro said:
Terrorists can be more than an individual who blows themselves up. Insurgents count as terrorists (to the occupying power, anyway) and they do battle, albeit not very effectively because insurgents are poorly trained and equipped. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. You should know this because you have Che Guevara in your signature. Che was considered a terrorist by some and a freedom fighter to others. Either way he was an insurgent and that's what we are partly talking about.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
I dont considered Che Guevara to be a terrorist. Terrorism is a group of actions that aren't supported by any country and have the objective to end up with something: can be economical affairs, political or cultural. Che Guevara was a man, who fight for having independence of Cuba and other countries, and i think he and his guerrilla was more a rebel faction, than a terrorist group...
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Teabeard has a point.
But unfortunately this is turning into a political debate, and all that was intended, was whether to add the feature of pillaging / bombing improvements and fighting with hidden nationality, etc. You could still call the unit 'Separatist' (as i have it named in my modified game), or spy, or militia, or whatever else.
Come on guys, it's just a game concept we are talking about, and not what's happening in real life.
If we stay out of the scope of this thread (which is the game), then surely some moderator will close it.
But unfortunately this is turning into a political debate, and all that was intended, was whether to add the feature of pillaging / bombing improvements and fighting with hidden nationality, etc. You could still call the unit 'Separatist' (as i have it named in my modified game), or spy, or militia, or whatever else.
Come on guys, it's just a game concept we are talking about, and not what's happening in real life.
If we stay out of the scope of this thread (which is the game), then surely some moderator will close it.
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
Those who fight for basque liberation, kills strategic persons, by placing bombs, doesnt do guerrilla wars, like the ones Che did.Teabeard said:
but i think that there shouldn't a terrorist unit. These acts, like pillaging a land or blow up a building, occur without any actions of any unit. Then you can prevent some more of these actions by placing a "counter terrorism" building in a city that has that risk.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Guerilla warfare is way different from terrorism, although the two are very close sometimes.
The Cuban Revolution involved many non-state actors, people who were not former Cubans but from various parts of Latin America. And they faught towards a political end.
But the comparisons stop when you compare political ends.
A group of terrorists, they use terror as a "negotiating tactic". Killing is an end in itself. They don't need to win to succeed, they just need to inflict severe casualties and cause serious damage. They achieve small political ends, such as "free my associate", or "withdraw from here", or "repeal this law", or "pay this ransom".
A guerilla insurgency, their aim is to overthrow, and nothing else.
The line is often blurred, though. Some terrorists manage to claim their own (unofficial) state. And some guerillas will leverage their small successes to gain bargaining chips towards an end.
But I still maintain that their ultimate purposes have a few clear differences.
I guess if you were to implement terrorists into Civ 4, they wouldn't just be the guerilla partisans you saw in Civ 2. They would more often try to just cause as much damage as possible, rather than trying to make a concerned effort for victory. They would almost behave like uncoordinated, non-state "spies", poisoning the water supply and sabotaging buildings (to use Civ terms). Guerillas would actually try to claim the city.
The Cuban Revolution involved many non-state actors, people who were not former Cubans but from various parts of Latin America. And they faught towards a political end.
But the comparisons stop when you compare political ends.
A group of terrorists, they use terror as a "negotiating tactic". Killing is an end in itself. They don't need to win to succeed, they just need to inflict severe casualties and cause serious damage. They achieve small political ends, such as "free my associate", or "withdraw from here", or "repeal this law", or "pay this ransom".
A guerilla insurgency, their aim is to overthrow, and nothing else.
The line is often blurred, though. Some terrorists manage to claim their own (unofficial) state. And some guerillas will leverage their small successes to gain bargaining chips towards an end.
But I still maintain that their ultimate purposes have a few clear differences.
I guess if you were to implement terrorists into Civ 4, they wouldn't just be the guerilla partisans you saw in Civ 2. They would more often try to just cause as much damage as possible, rather than trying to make a concerned effort for victory. They would almost behave like uncoordinated, non-state "spies", poisoning the water supply and sabotaging buildings (to use Civ terms). Guerillas would actually try to claim the city.
Similar threads
