Terrorism
- Thread starter Faiq Fataly
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
If you can find any historical examples i will maybe agree, but I don't think there was much Terrorism back in 1444.
- 8
Maybe instead of terrorism, sabotage would be a good idea they will maybe take a penalty to building infantry, or other things.
- 9
The british tried to kill Napoleon with bombs so it could be in the game, but terrorisn is not a good name for the modern age.
Political assassinations are only marginally connected to terrorism.
The concept of terrorism is to instill fear and panic to the civilan population in order to destabilize their governments. This requires abstract concepts like mass politics, responsible government, organized ideologies etc., nothing of which really existed in this timeframe. Assassinations of political leaders may or may not be part of a terrorist strategy, but, cruel as it may sound, there are easier and yet more effective targets for terrorists. Again, this is a line of thinking not prevalent in this timeframe.
So no, terrorism has no place in EU4.
Adding some kind of assassination mechanic may be worth a discussion, but this will almost certainly cause severe balancing problems, gameplay-wise.
The concept of terrorism is to instill fear and panic to the civilan population in order to destabilize their governments. This requires abstract concepts like mass politics, responsible government, organized ideologies etc., nothing of which really existed in this timeframe. Assassinations of political leaders may or may not be part of a terrorist strategy, but, cruel as it may sound, there are easier and yet more effective targets for terrorists. Again, this is a line of thinking not prevalent in this timeframe.
So no, terrorism has no place in EU4.
Adding some kind of assassination mechanic may be worth a discussion, but this will almost certainly cause severe balancing problems, gameplay-wise.
- 7
- 1
William the Silent was assassinated to cause fear and panic in the civilian population of the Netherlands in order to destabilise their government.
Still, terrorism, I don't think it's the right word.
Still, terrorism, I don't think it's the right word.
- 2
- 1
- 1
I was thinking that in the spy menu in the diplomatic actions you could have the option to kill a monarch or a heir of a country. But if the country finds out that it was you the one that ordered the assassination you get 200/100 AE.
Respectfully, i disagree. Willam the Silent´s assassination had the purpose to...kill William the Silent. It was a "classical" assassination, in fact his murderer was at least partly motivated by the money offered by Philipp II. Panicking the civilian population was a "nice to have" but not the goal of this deplorable action.
I´m not sure if i understand you correctly - are you arguing for 100 or 200 AE?
- May 6, 2015
- 2.278
- 3.160
100 AE is insane. That is double the coalition threshold and 50 years of AE burnoff.
Well, Killing a ruler of another country is a very serious thing. Perhaps 50 AE then?
- 3
I dont think AE is the right tool for this. Assassinations certainly would not cause a coalition, especially not with states who are not involvled in this rather sordid affair. I´d rather suggest the following if you get caught in such an attempt:
1) -1000 relations with the target, effectively blocking any further meaningful diplomacy, ticking down with no more than 3 points per month (depending on your dipl.rep.)
2) a severe hit to your legitimacy, devotion or republican tradition, perhaps 40 points
3) a free "diplomatic insult" casus belli for your target against you
4) a severe hit to "trust" with all your allies, your rivals, neighbours and everyone you are married to (now that everyone knows what a shady character you are..)
5) a -2 hit for your diplomatic reputation for 10 years
Pretty severe all in all, bur less destructive than AE, and more nuanced..
EDIT: Note espionage idea nr.5 "shady recrutiment". It could be modified to lessen the effects outlined above.
1) -1000 relations with the target, effectively blocking any further meaningful diplomacy, ticking down with no more than 3 points per month (depending on your dipl.rep.)
2) a severe hit to your legitimacy, devotion or republican tradition, perhaps 40 points
3) a free "diplomatic insult" casus belli for your target against you
4) a severe hit to "trust" with all your allies, your rivals, neighbours and everyone you are married to (now that everyone knows what a shady character you are..)
5) a -2 hit for your diplomatic reputation for 10 years
Pretty severe all in all, bur less destructive than AE, and more nuanced..
EDIT: Note espionage idea nr.5 "shady recrutiment". It could be modified to lessen the effects outlined above.
Last edited:
- 3
"My enemies are led by an extraordinarily competent man." "We could have him killed, your majesty." "Excellent plan. Tell me how much money you need to pay the assassin."
- 2
I obviously agree, it was merely a criticism on the definition of "Terrorism" which could also be losely applied to assassinations, as apart from the main reason of killing a competent man, it did destabilise and invoke fear in the populace
I know this post will be controversial as hell but I can't resist very unpleasant feeling about that thread and desire appearing
>few days after Paris
>posted by 'Turkish' guy
>who had no posts before, registered just now
>with no paradox registered games
>and with specific mention 'so we can do terror acts in enemy territories'
Bonus points of creepiness, at least for me, are added by the name of OP Faiq Fataly and the rank Recruit
Okay, that last one was half-serious (that's rather dark humor) but excluding creepy factors and the complete nonsense of terrorism in late medieval era, this thread is imo very inappropriate - it's like posting a thread 'natural disasters - can we add tsunami random events killing large amounts of population? they would be interesting addition' few days after 2004 asian tsunami, or a desire to add plane attacks in Cities: Skylines few days after 9/11 - 'oh yeah that event has remembered me, this feature needs to be in a game ASAP'
I'm speaking more about how it looks like that about some micro conspiracy theories, and it looks rather awkward
>few days after Paris
>posted by 'Turkish' guy
>who had no posts before, registered just now
>with no paradox registered games
>and with specific mention 'so we can do terror acts in enemy territories'
Bonus points of creepiness, at least for me, are added by the name of OP Faiq Fataly and the rank Recruit
Okay, that last one was half-serious (that's rather dark humor) but excluding creepy factors and the complete nonsense of terrorism in late medieval era, this thread is imo very inappropriate - it's like posting a thread 'natural disasters - can we add tsunami random events killing large amounts of population? they would be interesting addition' few days after 2004 asian tsunami, or a desire to add plane attacks in Cities: Skylines few days after 9/11 - 'oh yeah that event has remembered me, this feature needs to be in a game ASAP'
I'm speaking more about how it looks like that about some micro conspiracy theories, and it looks rather awkward
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
- May 6, 2015
- 2.278
- 3.160
You could argue that this was a very bad long term thing, since William actually wanted peace as soon as the Spanish would accept their terms. Instead they got 50 more years of war.
most of these penalties don't make much sense to me, i agree with the first one no diplomacy with a country you just attacked, but i don't see how it would damage the legitimacy of a ruler or why your allies would care if you kill an enemy of yours and most likely them.
My suggestion for a punishment to this action, is that it should give you some amount of ae, after all killing a head of state could be seen as an act of war, additionally give a casus belli and huge negative opinion modifier with every nation affect by it, means the nation itself and every nation that has an alliance or a royal marriage with the attacked nation or the same dynasty as the attacked nation
Legitimacy/rep.tradition/devotion depends - among other things - on your perception as a ruler, who impersonates justice by divine right, or by constitutional provisions. Trying to murder someone secretly does not fit to this concept at all.
As of 1.14. your realtions with you allies depends on trust - how trustworthy is someone who secretly sends killers instead of challenging his opponents directly?
Mind, these penalties should strike for every attempt whre you geht caught. The chances of actually succeeding should in any case be extremely low. Using assassinations as anything else than a measure from outright desperation would imbalance the game to ridiculous amounts. You should not be able to see more than perhaps 10 assassinations in an entire campaign. How many rulers in this timeframe have really been murdered?