Terrorism

[Zild]

I guess that one thing this thread has shown is that there are a number of possible additions that could be added to Civ4 along the general "terrorist" (used loosely) line, including terrorists, freedom fighters, guerillas, separatists, and so on...

Some of these can be state-sponsored, or intentionally act towards the same goals as a particular civ. Others merely cause random chaos. Thus it seems appropriate that these be represented in a variety of ways, some controlled directly by the player, some controlled only partially by the player, and some that occur entirely at random. And whilst Guerillas might best be represented as a player-controlled unit, terrorism might be better represented by random destruction in cities that is not controlled by any player at all - it is simply more likely with certain governments, happiness levels and so on...

Which means that a lot of the wide variety of options suggested in this thread, and perhaps others besides, could (and in my opinion should) be used together.

 

[dh_epic]

Well put, Zild. Why not have all of the above? I think you described the effects pretty well.

 

[Globetrotter]

Yup
A brief well written summary...

 

[Deathgoroth]

@ Ivan the Kulac
Thank you for giving me the link to this page.

I think that Civ4 must have some kind of terrorist activity baked into it.
The question is just how.

I think the easyies way is to keep the barbarian mode throughout the whole game with minor changes coming up for each era.

Teabeard suggested in the Diplomacy & Trade with Barbarians? thread that one could make deals with barbarians. I like this idea a lot. In the modern era, barbarians could be terrorists, and a civilization could by dealing with them, benefit from harbouring terrorists. These may cross borders as they usually do and cause problem to other nations. You could even encourage them to do so, or stag them if necessary.

In the War on Terror! Osama mania! thread Yuri2356 suggested that a terrorst leader figure could form new barbarian camps (terrorist camps) elsewhere. Terrorist camps can not be owerwhelmed by culture of course.

This will probably be the easiest way to build in a terrorist theme without altering Civ 3 as it is very much.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

But terrorism is not only fight battles agaisnt military targets and capture cities. Terrorism is sabotaging buildings, blow up things and pillaging lands, as a countermeasure for some actions of governments..... Is much more complex than just a band of military units....

 

[Deathgoroth]

I agree, but that is already built in as state terrorism, carried out either by units such as privateers, or by spy missions.

 

[Deathgoroth]

A guess the result of this election won't make this issue less relevant for the next CIV release.

A non-state terrorism consept must be a continuation of the barbarian consept. As it should be a form of terrorism that is less in control of the player.

I suggested once an other approach, that terrorists could form from the state in the way that certain military units can become hostile or restless and thereby acts by itself. The other barbarian approach is much better. But I would like to introduce a compromise:

Assume that the first terrorist concept is in place, which means that barbarian camps can pop up within states, and that you can benefit from harbouring them by diplomacy. None of your own military units can become terrorist units and act by them selves. But as you produce weapons and engage in war, there will be a certain amount of weapon proliferation: The more you produce, the more likely it is that barbarians/terrorist get the same weapons. Make a hell of a lot of nukes, and the terrorist will sooner or later end up having a nuke themselves!

This is actually how it works now, erawise or tech tree-wise, I'm not sure. Barbarians do get hold of weapons and military technology even if they do not spend anything on resaerch. But I have never seen barbarians with weapons of mass destruction or other high tech weapons. Nor have we seen that in real life either - so far - but that should not keep us from playing with that fantasy in CIV4.

 

[Hamah]

In CIV2, whenever a nation takes other nation´s city, depending on the population the city occupied has, some partisans come out of the city and stay outside it. It´s more challenging.

Moreover, when a nation has internal problems with population, cities join and form a nation divided from the original one.

Moreover, when population gets angry in a city it starts destroying city improvements until you calm them.

These could be some form of terrorism, not acts by themselves.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

A non-state terrorism consept must be a continuation of the barbarian consept.

What is, for you, the barbarian consept?

 

[Deathgoroth]

@ Comrade pedro

Sorry for not making that clear. By the barbarian concept I just ment to refer to the camps with barbarians or natives that goes around espesially in the beginning of the game. So maybe I should have used the term barbarian feature. As the world gets populated, they disappear because they are consumed within the cultural borders. I would like to see them reappear in the modern era, where they will be interpreted as terrorist camps, and where the cultural borders have no effect on the camps. In the modern era you could make diplomatic agreements with them and in some way or another benefit from harbouring them (any suggestions on how?). Thay will then be able to create hovic in neighbouring countries without having you participating in the warfare. Although harbouring these terrosists could make you naighbour pretty angry after a while. Together with proliferation of weapons the terrost may aquire more and more sophisticated weapons determined by your military production rate.

@Hamah
That have been discussed in an other thread. Don't remember where, but I like the idea. But it should not be too hard to beat the resisters. I think warfare in Civ is pretty hard already compared to scentific development.

 

[Deathgoroth]

@ Myself
Sorry for all misspellings there! I tried to edit the message after posting, but that did not work. But in the message I ment 'havoc', not hovic.. I don't know how both vowels got wrong there.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

I think barbarian concept is a very complex one. The Ancient Roman Empire for example: they use the word Barbarian to name everyone else that was invading their territories. They even used to recruit some of them for the Roman Army, but they eventually conquer Rome, because that barbarians have best weapons and give much importance to cavalry. After that, they settle down and begin to learn from the civilization they've conquered.
Some people also says that The Crusades were the last Barbarian Invasion of the Middle Ages. So barbarian is a word used to various concepts....

Now about the misspelings, dont worry, everyone makes mistakes

 

[Warspite2]

Terrorism would be a great addition to CIV4.

 

[Damburger]

There should be a terrorist unit, weak for its time period, that can attack anonymously like a privateer can. I should be fast, hard to see like a submarine, and be primarily used for capturing workers and pillaging.

I've tried out units like this in Civ 3 a bit, and they seemed a bit powerful, but maybe if they were coding a new game they could make them balanced?

 

[jonax]

Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are two combat methods, factions go from civil war to guerilla war to terrorism or back again based on their relative strenght. I don't think terrorism adds much on the level of civililizations, it is too ineffectual and already covered as destabilization for "state-sponsored terrorism".

Guerilla warfare is much more interesting. Civ III added resistors, a losing civilization might want to go for guerrillas (partisans, underground, freedom fighters...) to harrass the invader until strong enough to strike back conventionally. Guerillas are hit-and-run and based on slow attrition and attacking weaker targets like the logistics train. The net effect is to slow or dull military units, require larger garrisons, lower the use of resources.

 

[jonax]

If (more long-lived) factions were added to Civ, there might be more use for guerrillas/terrorism. Civ represents the regular invasions from outside fairly well (the barbarian hordes), but not discontent and rebellion from inside apart from lost production. If there are resistors there might be a chance the resistors got a leader and/or recruiter. A leader would mean a face you could approach with diplomacy and given enough resources guerilla or army units. A recruiter would increase the number of resistors. If the rebellion is successful enough it will have cities and armies and become another civilization, but if it is only partially successful a low-level guerilla warfare would be fought.

The question is how fun or playable this would be. It certainly would give even the most militaristic civilization a reason to keep their citizen happy, especially in conquered territories, but quelling rebellions could also end up as a chore. Barbarians are good for keeping you on your toes, but they aren't really fun.

 

[Goosbar]

i think it would be totall politiclly incorrect, but really, really cool

 

[AA-battery]

There should be a terrorist unit, weak for its time period, that can attack anonymously like a privateer can. I should be fast, hard to see like a submarine, and be primarily used for capturing workers and pillaging.

Yeah. It's about time there should be a land privateer.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Terrorists always have an objective when they do acts of terrorism.....

 

[Spatula]

i think it would be totall politiclly incorrect, but really, really cool

Whish is perhaps the best reason to have it