Terrorists

[Brian Shanahan]

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.

Those attacks came mainly in the 1600's and early 1700's in a time when England and later Britain had not yet fully realised the need for an island nation to have a military power. The Royal Navy up until the reatoration was either an ad hoc and temporary grouping of private ships or a corrupt institution where your title or how much you could pay determined how far you progressed. After the Navy was refromed in the late 1600s the threat to the British Isles disappeared, though the carrying trade in the Med. was still in some danger.

 

[Craxymaxy]

I don't think anyone here is saying to not have terrorism in the game, it sounds like an interesting idea, there just happen to be several ways of doing it, my favorite posted here would be city-states filling this roll or having some sort of international crime system (encompassing organized crime, druglords, terrorists, pirates and such as)

The problem people seem to have would be having specific terrorist events, such as "terrorist drives bus into barracks", "blow-up train system" or "steals plane and crashes into building" those kind of things are just plain offensive and could easily be done by just saying "your city has been hit by a terrorist attack and such and such building was destroyed"

 

[BlackSpy]

I'm deffo against terrorism in the game, and lots of other people have said they are too.

It just has no impact on a civilisation scale, and when it does (whether Archduke Ferdinand or the Kristallnacht) it gets adopted as a state to state or intra-state interaction.

 

[Jayrad]

even if you don't like it its not like its taking anything out of the game and terrorisim could easily br implemented by having random barbarian spies come up and do the normal spy missions

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I'm deffo against terrorism in the game, and lots of other people have said they are too.

It just has no impact on a civilisation scale, and when it does (whether Archduke Ferdinand or the Kristallnacht) it gets adopted as a state to state or intra-state interaction.

I would definately agree with this statement. And remember the oft quoted line "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The only time when terrorism or terrorist like acts have gained major traction is when the target country has massively over-reacted to the actions. An example for terrorism would be the reaction to 9-11 (I'm not saying the Us shouldn't have reacted, but to start two wars and invent a worldwide conspiracy is surely over-reaction), and for freedom fighters I would cite the executions of the 1916 Easter Rising leaders.

 

[Disgustipated]

Iraq wasn't started due to 9/11. Where do you people come up with this stuff? You could say the fear americans had after 9/11 allowed George Bush to start a war based off false information of weapons of mass destruction. The war was more about oil than it was about 9/11.

I fail to see how the U.S. over reacted to 9/11. Don't believe the liberal lies that Iraq was caused by 9/11. It was caused by an foolish president who had ideas of state building in his head, and wanted to be a hero that his father was not. Don't forget they tried to assassinate his father. Does anyone not suspect revenge? In no case has any white house statement said the Iraq war was because 0f 9/11. Although they did say that Iraq could possibly be a source of terrorism. They never specifically said it was the cause of 9/11 terrorism (I believe none of the bombers was from Iraq, and no one trained there).

Our previous policy was criminal prosecution, and it was clear that was not working. The source and training ground of the terrorists had to be eliminated. You could argue the continued involvement in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan is an overreaction. But at this point the Afghanistan war has little to do with 9/11. The war has since moved on pass that stage.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Iraq wasn't started due to 9/11. Where do you people come up with this stuff? You could say the fear americans had after 9/11 allowed George Bush to start a war based off false information of weapons of mass destruction. The war was more about oil than it was about 9/11.

I fail to see how the U.S. over reacted to 9/11. Don't believe the liberal lies that Iraq was caused by 9/11. It was caused by an foolish president who had ideas of state building in his head, and wanted to be a hero that his father was not. Don't forget they tried to assassinate his father. Does anyone not suspect revenge? In no case has any white house statement said the Iraq war was because 0f 9/11. Although they did say that Iraq could possibly be a source of terrorism. They never specifically said it was the cause of 9/11 terrorism (I believe none of the bombers was from Iraq, and no one trained there)

What and all the attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 and Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the Iraq war. Granted Bush was being pressured by both oil lobbies to invade, but 9/11 was the excuse he needed in order to push the invasion.

By the way, the only difference in my mind between Liberals and Conservatives is that Conservatives are (usually) honest enough to admit that they don't look out for the little guy.

 

[Craxymaxy]

no they didn't, but its hard to say that the political will for operation Iraqi freedom wasn't in large part due to 9/11, that however is not what this thread is about

 

[Craxymaxy]

I'm deffo against terrorism in the game, and lots of other people have said they are too.

It just has no impact on a civilisation scale, and when it does (whether Archduke Ferdinand or the Kristallnacht) it gets adopted as a state to state or intra-state interaction.

Kind of like making a late-game extremist city-state?

 

[Disgustipated]

no they didn't, but its hard to say that the political will for operation Iraqi freedom wasn't in large part due to 9/11, that however is not what this thread is about

I agree that's not what this thread is about. You can start a war for any reason you want to in civ4 and I assume civ5. Justifying a war is not necessary.

The real question is how should terrorism be modeled in game and if it should be modeled at all. I tend to agree with earlier posts that there really isn't enough effect to warrant inclusion. The espionage system works well enough in this regard (assuming they put it in an expansion as it won't be in civ5 vanilla).

The game is on too large a scale to model small radical groups. Remember you have domestic terrorism as well. How do you model that? Right now we use unhappy faces and city rioting. I feel that is sufficient. It's important not to focus too much on one time period. That's what mods/scenarios are for.

 

[Crazy George]

assuming they put it in an expansion as it won't be in civ5 vanilla...

Sheer brilliance.
I had never considered Firaxis would release C5 already knowing what the expansion packs would hold. But you are right, they already must have some vague idea, something on the drawing board.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm certain most gaming companies have a plan of what will be in their expansions and how many they plan to do (tentative upon how well the game sells of course). I think in many cases the producers have the developers hold back content for release in the expansion.

 

[Willem]

I think in many cases the producers have the developers hold back content for release in the expansion.

Plus there's always content that they haven't quite figured out how to implement and don't really have the time to work out all the details for in the initial release. It kind of sounds like religion is in that category. One dev comment mentions that they haven't ruled it out completely, they just need to rework it. The same probably goes for espionage. Getting back to the terrorist thing, it can easily be argued that the mission in Civ 4 where you poison the water supply of a city is a terrorist act.