Terrorism

[javad]

I think they should be of the same concept. Some guidelines include:
Terrorists can not come to action without a spy in place.
The bigger the civilization, the easier it is to get a spy into the nation.
Placing the spy is still done by the same means as Civ 3.
Terrorists cost sheilds to make. There can suicide bombers and dirty bombers. The latter is much more risky to use.
To deploy, use the espionage menu then pay the gold to deploy into a city or manually move the terrorist which is much riskier.
Terrorists that are moved are neutral and stay neutral but those deployed using the espionage menu can be revealed as from a certian nation causing nations who dislike you to declare war. Unless war is already occuring between the two civilizations.
Suicide bombers has 1/3 odds of destroying a city improvement and 2/3 odds of bombarding a defender.
Dirty bombers have 1/10 odds of bringing a citys population down to 1 and all the defenders die, but the city can not be captured for at least 2 additional turns. However, if the dirty bomber fails, his neutral status, if deployed from espionage menu, is revealed.
Civil Defense may decrease the odds of terrorists succeding?

 

[phorvath2110]

I think to add on to the idea of terrorism, terrorist attacks and guerillas uprisings should be rather linked. The "Barbarian Civ" should be able to launch terrorist attacks later in the game, whereas if it's a "Major Civ" then it should be considered "sabotage" or "espionage."

 

[rcoutme]

The only problem that I see with this idea is that terrorists (at least as we know them today) do not cause 'Civ-affecting' catastrophes. Consider the World Trade Center bombing. As evil and devastating as that cowardly attack was, the amount of people lost to the population of New York City was inconsequential to a game like Civ. In addition, the quantity of troops injured and killed in Iraq since the invasion would probably constitute at MOST, one hit point.

Granted, the terrorists can change governmental policies and really shake things up, but the attacks are not nearly as significant (in Civ game turns) as the perpetrators would like us to think.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

i've seen a suicide bomber implemented in a scenario of the iran-iraq war by mr. black.
the terrorist costs a population point, is invisible and has cruise missile ability (that is, when he attacks he causes damage and then dies).

 

[Dreadnought]

The only problem that I see with this idea is that terrorists (at least as we know them today) do not cause 'Civ-affecting' catastrophes. Consider the World Trade Center bombing. As evil and devastating as that cowardly attack was, the amount of people lost to the population of New York City was inconsequential to a game like Civ. In addition, the quantity of troops injured and killed in Iraq since the invasion would probably constitute at MOST, one hit point.

I agree with you! Dropping to population to 1 point would be unrealistic. In a metropolis of 15 people equals about a pop of 960,000. One terrorist attack killing 800,000 people is very unrealistic.

 

[Fromage10x]

It would make a lot more sense to have it effect the faces of the city...change a happy to content, a content to unhappy...that sort of thing,

 

[Dreadnought]

Yea, but only for a limited amount of time, say, eight turns or something.

 

[dh_epic]

Terrorists are rarely state sponsored. Who produced Timothy McVeigh?

And when they ARE state sponsored, they're not called terrorists. They're called "freedom fighters", or in some cases, "guerillas".

If you're going to introduce terrorists, you're either talking about "suicide bombers" and "guerillas", and not terrorists.

Or you're talking about "late game barbarians", with no civ, that appear when there's a reason to... attacking a strong civ, causing them stress -- to say the least.

 

[Fromage10x]

True. It would be best to restrain this to barbarians, basically making it sort of like a random event.

However, maybe people should be allowed to syphon funding into the barbarians.

 

[Dreadnought]

If it is for barbarians, make it an option to turn this on/off. I don't want to play my game, and all of the sudden, I find out a terrorist bombed one of my cities.

 

[dh_epic]

Well terrorism isn't as random as barbarism. Barbarians, they're almost like camps of thieves.

Terrorists have political motives. Which means they have to:

1: come from a position in the world of low social standing
e.g.: in a poor middle east country
e.g.: in a poor part of america

2: attack a place of high social standing
e.g.: political power, like government buildings
e.g.: economic power, like commercial buildings

and usually,

3: for retribution
e.g.: timothy mcveigh, over the incident in waco texas
e.g.: osama bin laden, over continued american interference in the middle east

Basically, the more you use violence to settle your conflicts, the more likely you're going to get violence in return.

I'd like to see this scientific principle incorporated into the game calculations.

 

[Fromage10x]

Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

i really dont like the idea of terrorists in the game...
the whole concept of "terrorism" is a 20th century thing and has little
historical importance. in scenarios taking place over a short time, one might implement it in some way but i'd hate for it to be a feature of the game.

 

[Dreadnought]

You are right, wohmongarinf00l.

 

[masterofdragons]

Democratic and idealistic governments (I think) should be adverse to terrorist tactics, since terrorism thrives on limiting liberties. Only certain, totalitarian or extremist governments should be allowed to use such tactics, and then with grave world view consequences...

 

[masterofdragons]

My favorite choice is merely to change the name of classic "barbarians" to "terrorists" when you get to the 20th century. Someone should look up/find a good term for what a common thug would be in the 19th century - I am sure they weren't running around saying, "The barbarians are coming!" ("Pirates" maybe?)

 

[dh_epic]

masterofdragons, I agree and disagree.

State sponsored war criminals, who interfere in other governments without the declaration of war happen independant of ideology. The difference, I guess, is that suicide bombers happen when they don't have any other weapons. But the number of troops that prosperous countries have sent to other countries and then denied their existence is very common, especially in the cold war era. In other words, anyone can produce a terrorist -- terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder.

But I do agree that renaming barbarians as terrorists is a pretty effective way to simulate the postmodern world we live in.

 

[wisewood]

Terrorism would be a good addition to the game...You could pay terrorists...to demage roads in your enemy's territory..or cut off their supply of coal...something like that...or destroy city improvments...