Terrorism

[GoodGame]

I wouldn't say 'taboo', but having it in a game would be 'tasteless' to really 'disrespectful'.

Having played the new Command and Conquer, I can say that having it (exploding suicide units) really doesn't make me want to play that side, or even glorify it.

On the other hand, not having it in any-way shape or form is like worthless white-washing. For ex. I actually like how the RAR mod incorporates Slavery with it's honest ugliness. But it doesn't try to glorify the thing. There's a thin, almost too thin line between depicting and promoting sometimes.

At most, I might have a special unit subterfuge unit that can be mult-tasked do things like kill civilian pop points, but also sabtage in other ways, with the player taking reputation hits for using it.

 

[bkwrm79]

Terror does have a link to poverty, or at least desperation. You wouldn't be able to pay Iraqi civilians "on the fence" a thousand bucks to throw grenades at American civilians if the unemployment rate wasn't huge, and if their family wasn't factored in with "collatoral damage".

The problem is the same in Palestine and many other hotbeds for suicide bombing.

Not to say that some people aren't truly crazy, or intellectually frustrated with the conditions that others face and join up with some cause. That's true for anything. And there are plenty of people who even in desperate situations they would never take another human life (although they might give food or aid to a terrorist or even just sympathy).

But desperation provides the heat, and everyone's got a different boiling point.

Dear god the desperation of having nothing in front of you but a future of using your law or engineering degree to make tons of money to support your family and live fairly luxuriously...

Poverty doesn't correlate well with terrorism.

I don't think anyone has studied prohibition of alcohol in relation to terrorism but I doubt it has a huge impact either.

As far as the game, I'm dubious about the prospects of implementing a fun system of terrorism. I wouldn't mind seeing guerrilla warfare expanded but, although many groups practice both guerrilla warfare and terrorism, they are different activities. Guerrilla warfare relates better to the difficulties an invading force might face in occupying territory - certainly that was the Civ II model.

 

[brinko]

Poverty doesn't correlate well with terrorism

u have no idea do u.

 

[bkwrm79]

u have no idea do u.

I have a very good idea... terrorism and counter-terrorism is my main area of study.

Suicide bombers are often well educated and well off.

Terrorists tend to come from the middle classes of relatively rich nations.

If poverty was an important causal factor you'd find a lot more Bangladeshi terrorists, and a lot fewer Saudi Arabians.

I respectfully suggest you do some more reading on the topic - which you seem to find interesting, as I do. You will find that an awful lot of countries have suffered from terrorism (including Canada and Britain!). And then I think there's an off-topic board for this stuff.

 

[Whomp]

@bkwrm--You handled that well. IMO this is better off topic.

 

[dh_epic]

bkwrm79, I vigorously disagree with you. Beyond that, I question your credentials, sources, and/or place of work. but this is better for off topic.

And I'd agree with you on one thing. The problem with terrorism isn't so much the fact that it's taboo (who cares if it's taboo?), but more that it's not the most fun thing to implement.

People think about terrorism and think about the past 4 years. They think about the war on terror. They think about invading Afghanistan and Iraq as some kind of terrorist paradise, where they will plow through the terrorist armies, destroy the hive and eliminate terrorism once and for all. If that's all they want, then you already have terrorism in Civ 3. I call it "war".

If terrorism really ends up being a bunch of incidents that impact innocent civilians -- often only dozens at a time -- and the perpetraitors are often tiny groups of people who are very difficult to find and thus involves heaps of intelligence and other tools for prevention... well, don't get me wrong, this would be neat. But compared to a lot of other things they could implement, terrorism would be pretty low on my list.

 

[ckn]

what about the most unwelcome nation of the game suffering a high probability of terrorist attacks as random events (like nuclear meltdown in civIII). If, for example, country A happens to be the notorious nation, at least 2 cities will be victimised by terrorists who will cause unhappiness/pollution/unit damage etc. This condition can be reversed by improving the foreign relations of said nation.

 

[Whomp]

This needs to go off topic.

Civ3 in effect has the features people are asking for with resistors, culture flips, civil disorder, mother country oppression and unhappy people. There are different words we can use other than terrorism that could impact the game? IE tyranny, oppression, imperialism, religious fanaticism, ethnocentricity, genocide etc. All are real and important events throughout history. To me these events relate to the desire for conquest. Rather than impact the citizens of a city hurt the oppressors military.

@dhepic--The person loaded with explosives may not need an inordinate amount of brains or money. You are correct. However those behind it do.

 

[brinko]

how could we go off topic discussing terrorism when the thread is called terrorism. ?

whats the difference between a resistor and a terrorist?
besides the fact that one will attack military units while the other will attack military/ civilian units?

i think after a point in the game the resistors should be called terrorists. It only seems politically incorrect now adays. like postman to postperson.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

The question is that terrorists aren't equal trought the world....some are more "stupid", because they didn't put value in inocent human life, others are more rational and make his resistance in other ways, like ETA in Spain......

But i think the terrorism in civ 4 should be inserted like sabotage. In certain locations, terrorists make bomb explode, or kill some important person.....

 

[brinko]

i agree comrade, there has to be a role for terrorism in modern civ 4...
and there are many ways to incorporate it....hmmm, maybe at the discover of corporations, it becomes a problem?

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Yes, the fighting agaisnt the great multinationals..... but also with more advances, like industrialization, for example, terrorism shold be intensified..... there would be forms of resistance agaisnt that advance...

 

[Whomp]

Simply have the moderators move the thread
Call it what you will IMO some may take issue with terrorists.
Those that are oppressed seems to be more politically correct. I would think the oppressors conquering in foreign lands (mainly military) would be the ones the oppressed would go after. Why corporations? Wouldn't polytheism be more historically accurate?

 

[Comrade Pedro]

corporations includes the flooding of mundial markets if products of one big corporation....That is a question that possibily can create a rebel sentiment.....

 

[brinko]

the weird thing about terrorism is that i never took it serious as a child watching hollywood movies with bruce willis or steven segal. it was funny how they would always make the terrorists look like germans or russians, never middle easterners. its like there are 2 types of terrorists, ones that have a financial motive, such as (forget the title of the movie, it has john mcbain or mccain in it.) and then they have the international terrorist which have some sort of religious motive.

maybe a screen can pop up, saying u have a choice to a terrorist ransom...
-pay 300 gold
-send in anti terrorism task force
-ignore them
-etc...

if u ignore them, they blow up a hospital or a reseach lab or something....
pay them they might do it again....
send in force---the force might fail,

there should also be wonders to help reduce these occuraNCEs
homeland security
more money in airport security
etc...
whomp we dont need a new thread, keep it all in the same place... this is called brainstorming...

 

[bkwrm79]

I agree with Whomp. There are two discussions going on here, one on politics and one on the game - and they are interfering with each other. The politics should be taken to an OOC thread, this thread is for discussing how we'd like the next Civ to work.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

And then terrorist can also make more dificult demands like the independence of a expecific region of your nation, or a total break up of comerce with one civilization.

 

[brinko]

there are some great ideas on terrorism as a concept in civ 4... i hope they can apply some of them. some people on other threads were saying modern era is boring...it wouldnt be boring if u were getting black mailed all the time by an organization hidding in one of the countries. the fun would be finding who is harbouring terrorist...

terrorism should be part of espionage for the player himself. we all know thats how bin laden got his training. i dont see why the player couldnt use terrorism himself on other countries as a strategy. the cool thing would be that if a country found out what the player was doing, (by what ever means nessecary) especially after an attack... it should spark a non ending war against oneself. including attacks from a possible ai controlled un force.

but lets say if i was conducting terrorism, and i had an outstanding relationship with a neighbouring country, and i got caught using terror tactics, the world politics should assume they were involved as well, and declare world war on them too. but in this case i dont think it should constitute a never ending war against them as such as in my case. peace should be available for them after so many years.

the same should apply to ones country when a neighbour with outstanding relations is caught using terrorism by another ai country. in this case my country should be accused of being linked, and be drawn into a global war..but in this case i wouldnt be involved in a never ending war such as my neighbour

when i say never ending war, it should be indeed global, involving almost all nations, and should almost last till the end... that should be the repercussion of using terrorism as a strategic device.

what do u think?

 

[Princeps]

Terrorism would be born when your civilization conquers enemy cities.

Terrorism would do little damage to the population or to the infrastructure of the city thats under attack. But effect upon happiness would be far more greater, and people would start demanding action.

Under governemnts fascism, despotism, monarchy and communism terrorism would not create unhappiness so much. Under govs Republic, democracy and feudalism, terrorism can become a real problem.

Or every goverment could have its effiecency against terrorism. 1-10

Despotism : 5
Monarchy : 7
Communism : 8
Fascism : 10
Feudalism : 5
Republic : 4
Democracy : 2

Something like this...

 

[Whomp]

@Naziassbandit I couldn't have said it better...

With reference to the game I think we need to take a broader more historical approach than "today's conflict".

IMO the focus would be on the citizens retaliating against occupation (genocide) by foreigners. Those that force their imperialist actions (or for that matter religious or political ideology) on your people should pay consequences. If they eventually make these people happy again? They are reformed and a working part of your Civ.

If your a peaceful builder why should you be attacked by guerillas? An attack from another nation? Of course. Guerilla actions? No.