Terrorists

[SuperSatan3]

I actually think this would be interesting. I definitely think after the Middle Ages, Barbs should be replaced by Pirates. In the 20th century, terrorists would replace them. This is realistic. In the Ancient Era and Medieval, Barbarian swarms would attack the land, in the 16th or 17th century, Pirates would replace them and attack by sea, then those would be replaced by terrorists which primarily participated in Espionag0e and secret attacks.

Good thoughts.

Dunno how relevant this link is to the thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Piracy


I think it is relevant to define what exactly a terrorist is, let alone define what would be the equivalent in a Civilization game.

As for 9/11, I quite remember a lot of people losing their jobs as a direct result of a recession caused by the Twin Towers being destroyed(my own father worked as a manager for Hewlett-Packard. He had to lay off quite a few of his own employees and was eventually demoted himself. HP eventually forced him to choose between relocating to another state, or losing his job). I also know Spider-Man(which took place in New York) and a lot of other movies were altered, delayed, or never even released. I suppose the closest equivalent in Civ4 would be if a spy destroyed the Wall Street National Wonder. As for unhappiness, a terrorist attack would cement patriotism, and make people less likely to oppose a war( thus reducing war weariness).

Also Ahriman, May I ask if you are American? I cannot speak for other countries, but I believe in American media that violence in other parts of the world are heavily downplayed in the US. We much prefer to hear about Suri Cruise and Justin Bieber than about the Israeli conflict.

 

[Durloth]

How about terrorism becoming a random occurence when your civ is playing off a very dominating position? I don`t know about you, but when I`m a large civ, I like capturing cities by cutting them off completely using cultural borders and blocking trade with my ships. Terrorism in this kind of scenario would be perfectly realistic.
I think it could be implemented by building destroyed (just like fires in Civ4), with the choice of spending money to manipulate the media and give you some kind of bonus as the people rally behind you and give you more political leway.

 

[RRtexasranger]

Again, this is way out of scale. The 9/11 attack (largest terrorist attack in history) did not suddenly make New York shut down for 10 years because its citizens were rioting in the streets.

9/11 would make it actually have the opposite effect, make people happier (that is, if happiness is supposed to represent the approval rating, which based on the demographics screen, it does). Bush's approval rating post 9-11 were the highest out of any US president in history.

 

[Chalks]

9/11 would make it actually have the opposite effect, make people happier (that is, if happiness is supposed to represent the approval rating, which based on the demographics screen, it does). Bush's approval rating post 9-11 were the highest out of any US president in history.

This is a very insightful point that illustrates the problems with representing such events in civilization very well.

From a leadership perspective, the net effect of such attacks can often be a positive.

That would be a very controversial thing to attempt to model.

 

[Ahriman]

It also gets at the main reason why terrorism is generally ineffective; its main impact is to get those it is directed at to unite against the perpetrators and makes it *harder* to get the political aim you wanted.

 

[Perfxion]

As a person who lived just outside of NYC in 2001, I DO NOT WANT ANYTHING like 9/11 in civ. HIGHLY OFFENSIVE to a lot of people. Why would they be dumb enough to add anything remotely like that to a game that just does not need it?

Sea and land pirates would do a good job adding what people want without offending a high amount of people and getting the news to run with a negative story.

 

[Durloth]

With all due respect; Try asking people living in Japan about having nukes in the game or people living on the West Bank about isolation as a tactic to strangle cities. Why shuld a US trauma (that caused far fewer casualties) be concidered any worse?

 

[BlackSpy]

It also gets at the main reason why terrorism is generally ineffective; its main impact is to get those it is directed at to unite against the perpetrators and makes it *harder* to get the political aim you wanted.

But, if you don't believe you're being listened to it does at least make you think you are 'doing something'.

 

[Ahriman]

Try asking people living in Japan about having nukes in the game or people living on the West Bank about isolation as a tactic to strangle cities.

I think people in Japan recognize that nukes have been a hugely important part of history. I don't think they'd object to having nuclear weapon in a game.

Your Palestine case is really a huge reach, and I think you know it. There are no strategic incentives in the game to push people into refugee camps, or anything similar, and there are no mechanics that in any shape or form model the Palestine situation.

"Flying planes into buildings" is also a whole lot more specific than "using nukes".

But the main reason not to include terrorism is that it hasn't historically been very effective; its just not that big a deal in terms of actual impact on economies of major powers, and it doesn't kill that many people. If terrorism alone could achieve goals then there would be a Palestinian state by now.

But, if you don't believe you're being listened to it does at least make you think you are 'doing something'.

Sure, that explains why people do it IRL. But it doesn't provide any argument for including it in the game.

 

[BlackSpy]

Sure, that explains why people do it IRL. But it doesn't provide any argument for including it in the game.

Oh absolutely, I wouldn't put it in. I think mechanisms for colonies and the like to rebel would be interesting as options but terrorism has never been significant on a civilisation scale.

 

[Durloth]

@Ahriman: I more or less agree on both counts, but that wasn`t my point. It was a reply to the poster that didn`t want a game mechanism because it could be offending. This is a game where starvation, poisoning cities` water supplies and nukes are part of viable tactics and terrorist attacs are supposed to be offending?

BTW: I agree that the planes-into-buildings plan is a bad one, but mostly because it doesn`t represent the majority of terrorist attacks in any way.

 

[Brownsfan02]

i think abraxis has the right idea personally

 

[Durloth]

I also like Abraxis` idea, exept that it kind of makes terrorists into simple pawns, rather than the consequenses of the large civilizations` actions, where I think they belong.

 

[Rusty Edge]

or 4) you are so much more powerful than them that they don't bug you

Sort of... Temporarily. Britain had the world's most powerful navy and threatened them with violence if they interfered with their shipping. That cut down on the piracy against Brit interests ,but didn't stop slaving raids in the Mediterranean, Ireland and Iceland. The Algerines couldn't resist the temptation. When the Napoleonic wars were over the US ( who had been a tributary, but the Algerines kept raising their rates ) sent a task force to beat them in to submision. A couple years later the British and Dutch sent a task force under Lord Exmouth which bombarded the city into changing their evil ways. Then France conquered Algeria.

 

[BlackSpy]

I think Abraxis' idea sounds like great gameplay, but it does feel more like organised crime than terrorists and I'm really not sure about that degree of influence having any rooting in real life - is like SPECTRE in James Bond or something.

 

[Crazy George]

Presumably, some sort of Unsportsman-like Units (for lack of a better word) will be available in C5: Privateers, Submarines, and Steath Bombers coming rapidly to mind, as well as the possibility of invisible Spy like units or Guerillas.

I am happy to define Terrorism within the realms of C5 as the use of any of the forgoing Unsportsman-like Units.
(Clearly, a definition that could use a little tweaking).

To implement these units, one could always add an invisible power structure (Organized Crime, Terrorists, UFO's, Cultists, etc.). But since, C5 already comes with enemy Civilizations, City States, and Barbarians, I am not convinced that another power structure that is not reachable (i.e. attackable) by the normal game mechanics is either required or desirable.

I would further point out that in a recent C5 demo, a City State was seen instigating a war between two other Civilizations. Give this City State a suitable name, a preference for producing Unsportman-like Units, and launching sneak attacks, and I believe we have all the tools required for a "Terrorist State" to be implemented in C5.

 

[Willem]

Try asking people living in Japan about having nukes in the game or people living on the West Bank about isolation as a tactic to strangle cities. Why shuld a US trauma (that caused far fewer casualties) be concidered any worse?

The case with Japan and nukes is completely different. They were at war with the US at the time, dying was a risk that everyone had to live with everyday. The US just happened to come up with the bigger gun. The people in NY however were caught complete blindside. They certainly weren't expecting anything like what happened, and there was absolutely no provocation for it. It was simply a random act of violence, so to speak.

 

[Durloth]

there was absolutely no provocation for it. It was simply a random act of violence, so to speak.

I could not disagree more. At all.

Anyway this is not the place for that discussion and it was not the point I was trying to make. My post was a reply to the poster that didn`t want terrorists because it was "offensive".

During WW2 the city I grew up in was bombed until only a handfull of buildings stood (and we were a neutral state). That doesn`t give me any right to demand that bombers are left out of the game, does it?

Besides; would it be so bad (from a marketing position) if CiV was a little offensive? I mean, the GTA franchise is doing alright, isn`t is?

 

[Perfxion]

I am not trying to down state what happen to your city. But war time is a lot different than peace time. Most places around a war zone get smashed due to both sides hiding every where and blowing things up. Not saying its a ideal place to be but war is one of the ugliest things of mankind. Besides most places get bombed when there are war related activities going on.

On the other hand with the World Trade Centers, the last thing done there was the filming of "Rollin" by LB and the over 5000 died were the likes of fashion firms and .com companies middle management. There were no government employees in those buildings. The federal building was down the block. Its one of those fresh wounds to people who live in and around NYC that just not a good idea of bring up.

There is no game play point in "planes flying into buildings". There is not a single reason to put it into a game that does not just cover fighting a group of terrorist over the last ten years. All it would do to a game like civ is just cause negative press and offend many people.

GTA is a mature only game(rated M in the US) that is excessively violent for its offensiveness. Civ is a more family friendly game(rated E10 in the US) that is supposed to have a broader appeal. I doubt 9/11 would have a major broad appeal.

 

[Durloth]

This is a game where starvation, poisoning cities` water supplies and nukes are part of viable tactics and terrorist attacs are supposed to be offending?

BTW: I agree that the planes-into-buildings plan is a bad one, but mostly because it doesn`t represent the majority of terrorist attacks in any way.

GTA is absolutely more graphically violent, but in pure body count there are probably not a single game out there more violent than the Civ franchise.

I could see how terrorists can be a sensitive issue, especially to Iraquis, Pakistanis and Indians who have to worry about terrorist acts on a daily basis, I just do not think it is enough to leave it out of the game alltogether.