National Order of Warmongers

For the continuation of the proud tradition of militarism of The War Church and others.
Welcome to the NOW a collection of like minded citizens concerned with the goings-on in our empire.

What is the NOW Group?
As a group of citizens, we are concerned about our military and our ability to wage defensive and offensive wars with hostile nations. Our group seeks to inform the government of our military needs, including unit production, upgrading, and militaristic improvements. We Do not seek to be a voting bloc, we instead are a group of concerned citizens sharing goals of glory on the battlefield and sharing stories of our nations victories.

Aims and Beliefs


War is a legitimate form of foreign policy, aggressive and defensive.
Strike first, strike fast, strike hard. Wage sucessful campaigns.
The maintenance of a strong army, in peacetime and in conflict.
A Home for militarists within the empire to have reasonable debate.
Our aims may evolve over time, depending on our sucesses.


Who We Are
CivGeneral (Volunteer Ambassador To The Children of Peace)
Peri
Charon
Plexus
Bootstoots
Bacon King
Inter32
Stuck_As_a_Mac
ybbor
amirsan
ULCards203
Strengefuhrer
Abgar
Sarevok
Karsten Strauss
combat101

Supporters
Children of Peace (I am hoping to get our two groups to get along)

I would like to join please.

Put on your caps guys :viking:
We're going to war!
(Count me in)

As founder of the COP, I must deplore the, hmm, violent and irrationnal group that is born. Know that I look at you.

FC - We are not a violent and irrational group. In fact I myself am a Peacefull Warmonger. I only wage an open war if I know I can win it. Which is why I have appointed myself as Ambassador to the COP.

After talks with Bacon King. He gave me a little test and that I have discovered that I myself I am a peacemonger. I wish to remain in this group since I do support a Standing Army but I am not a supporter for Agressive War that has no point.

I will join.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but am I the only one who sees something wrong with the understanding NOW is showing towards "The Children of Peace"?
Just to remind you, their fundamental beliefs are:
1.No aggressive war is legitimate, may it be for tiles, cities or ressources.

2.We support heavy trading to access ressources and techs we do not own.

3.We support any war declared by the AI, but it must end as soon as possible(as soon as the AI wants to talk with us).
How can NOW possibly agree with such standards, not to mention support them. If CivGeneral is joining the Children of Peace then something is wrong with one or both of the factions.

No agressive war is legitimate? Sealing a peace treaty as soon as the enemy is even willing to talk? How does that settle with any of the thing we preach?
Agressive war is the best kind of war, it is the war we have most chances to benefit from.
Perhaps I misunderstood the aims of NOW, in such a case, please clarify this issue for me.

I'll join this group; any profitable war is a good war.

I'll join this group. I may be pacifist in RL, but theres no reason why that should restrain me from going to war in Civ. Any war that has a positive outcome for us is a good war.

@Charon - I am interested in joining. Since there seems to be a problem with founders of another oposing faction joining another Faction. Then I wish to hearby step down and let Peri be in charge.

Here is an explanation, While talking with Bacon King, He told me that my ideals are more twards a Peacemonger. I do Support heavy trading, and I also support a swift end to a war.

Count Me In. :)

In real life I'm a full peace supporter, but this is CIV! We have to expand somehow..

I'll join both groups in good taste. Another real life Pacificst/(Dean Supporter), Civ warmonger

The problem I see with being a membmer of both groups is that while they may agree on certain cases, and during the first turns nither will suggest totally different way to run things is that the actual fundaments of beliefs are opposite.

They way I see it, at least, it's not that warmongers are against trade, and being a warmonger doesn't mean you necesserily want to achieve conquest victory. What it means is that you fundamentally believe it is the right of our people to take that which will further the goals of our nation, by force if needed, from other nations. If you rather put it otherwise, it means you believe the true democracy is superior and it is our duty, our moral duty even, to aspire to fold as many lands as possible under our wings.

As I meantioned before, in the peacemonger's thread, there are some factors that will sometimes make a truce the best choice, make peace more beneficial for our people. But the basic agenda is to gain as many provinces for our governors as possible.

The children of peace preach peace as the state we need to aspire to at all times, and was is the necessity. I preach (I'd like to say "we", but I no longer know where anyone really stands on this) the exact opposite.

I suppose this debate will come to it's height during the middle ages, in the ears of the knights and later the cavalry- that's the real time for crusades across the continent.

I will note that I mix a bit of roleplaying in the actual civing :), I'm talking ideals more than I'm talking game terms, well, don't confuse "Citizen Charon" the politician with me as a gamer or a person, and like everyone said here- my opinions on the civ game are not anywhere near my opinions on the state my country is in.

i'll join, this is my first democracy game (i feel like i'm really close to doing something wrong or screwing up) i originally was about to turn away from this thread, but after reading a bit on, this seems to fit me, i usually play builder/warmonger games with a heavy focus on war in the late (tanks and onward) game. i am usually not allt hat fond of war before the mid-late industrial age, but i am very confident that under other players guidence, we can wage sucessful war, and i see it in a democracy game to be one area where we should excell, my best wishes to all who join

I love war! Count me in! :D

I am looking foward to a position in military defense and science for this game.

Originally posted by amirsan
I love war! Count me in! :D

I am looking foward to a position in military defense and science for this game.

I have dibs on the Military :p

well I know you might win, so can I have dibs on deputy? :D

Count me in

charon, i must agree with you, there is very little chance NOW and COP will ever agree on any major issue, aside from early expansion. The COP seems to me a group to counter the NOW, as thier only major issue is that they oppose war, we can not run a game simply by oppsoing war, we must have a set goal, the NOW's goal is clear, aggresive diplomacy, including war, to expand our empire. The only real view the COP holds is quote "2.We support heavy trading to access ressources and techs we do not own." that is not something we can center a game around, okay, so we have techs, now what? they mainly exist so we don't get to powerful, if those people want to suport heavy trading, join the philosaphers, which we can center a game around, and would be at least semi-helpful to us (less culture flips) if you are part of NOW and "support heavy trading to access ressources and techs we do not own." join the philosphers, not a group that believes war is bad

no offense is intended to anyone, if i have offended you in any way, i'm sorry

I'll join!
I'm a warmonger in all my games so this sounds like my kind of group. I hope the group's aims are only to wage war if :
- there is certainty of a succesful war
- of a short war
- against enemies who won't bring larger enemies in
- if the war will cripple a foe and will allow us to profit (receive tech from agreements for example).

I will join

Ill join this fun. time for military conquest!

I wish to join, even though I don't think of myself as a warmonger. I'm not out for victory by domination, just the largest, grandest nation possible which doesn't have to depend on trading with other nations for its most vital resources. I am more of a believer in Manifest Destiny, and being a "child of peace" would get in the way of that. We should acquire the largest contiguous section of our continent possible, be it by cultural, diplomatic, or military means. I am a supporter of any expedient war that helps us take over our own continent or secures vital resources abroad.

The one issue I have with our group's statement of beliefs is that we should maintain a strong military in peacetime. It seems like a waste of resources unless we can support the troops at little cost during peace. Offensive troops shouldn't be built unless the intention to go to war is likely to be made by our democracy. Why have an army other than defensive forces unless you intend to use them?

Welcome everyone.

With the elections comming around. I am planning to run for Military Leader. I have many plans for the early phase of the game. First I plan to raise warriors to lead exploration missions around our territory. I then plan to push forward for research for iron working to build 10 Swordsmen. I plan on creating a warrior factory and sending them to a city connected to iron with a barrack to create cheap swords.

what will our desired government path look like i.e,

despo--->republic [war=monarch]--->commun [war=commun]--->demo [war= republic]

something like that, showing the desired path, and at eac govern what govern we switch to in the evnt of a war

edit: i personaly say despo--->monarch[war=monarch]--->commun[war=republic]

I beleve that Despot-->Monarch path should be good.

Though by the time we hit Communism, the game is already set to victory.

I believe it should be despo ----> republic
Repub will allow us to have a decent army and be scientifically superior. Our wars will have to be short and victorious though, and that means meticulously planned wars prepared in advance.
Repub should be alright though, as the WW is rather low.

I would like to see Despotism to republic. It encourages us to fight precise wars and gives us technologies with stronger units. Plus, if we can manage to build a wonder such as the Great Library, we don't have to worry about science for a while and can focus more on our military prowess and city improvements.

well i say, since we're not playing a religous civ (unless cleo gets an amazing uprising of suport, and we re-poll) despo--->monarch works best because in the ancient age, alll those 1 movement point units will prevent out wars from bieng that quick. monarch will probably be best if we are in as much war as we think we are going to be in, the war weariness will eventually be a problem, if we know we aren't going to war for a while we can switch to a peacetime government, but i really think we should go w/ a strictly wartime path

1. Since Conquest/Domination is the most fun way to win, I'll join this group.

2. Desptotism-Monarchy is the right choice if we want to conquer lesser civs, but we should switch to Republic if it ever looks like we have a long period of peace ahead of us.

EDIT: 3. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1478535#post1478535 All who support Conquest or Domination victory types, show support on this thread.

I will join

count me in,

I believe CivGeneral that another one of our issues should be the building of a navy, if we can control the seas, we can control trade, expansion, and landing anywheres we want!

Count me in. I'm in favor of wars to (listed in my personal order of priority):[list=1] acquire strategic ressources (no need to argue, at least for me)
acquire luxury resources (let our people be happy)
round up our territory (strategic importance)
expand our territory (size is power)
create Great Leaders (best way to get wonders)
slow down research of other nations (they shall pay for our techs)
make slaves (not this important, since we are industrious)
[/list=1] And once at war, I take every possible precaution[list=1] to not loose one of our cities
to loose as few units as possible
to create and protect elite units
to soften the enemy's defences with bombardment
to pillage enemy resources
to break enemy trade routes
[/list=1]And I always keep my deals!

can I join. war is my favourite way to beat the game.

Fellow warmongers, in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80308) I advocate to got to war against the Egyptian intruders.

I ask for your support in this righteous crusade! :ninja:

i argee wit your views on how our glorious nation must be preserved and defended and wish to join your society

i'm in, although this is my first demogame, as long as the war that we fight is quick

I will join.

That being said, I am more aligned with CivGeneral's personal view rather than the ubiquitous "wage war to beat up the other players!" outlook. War should not be waged for wars sake, nor for conquering or even expansion. War is waged for defense and security reasons only, never to an extreme degree (each war should have a modest goal; for instance, to capture a city or two). War must be quick and as painless as possible (least amount of casualties to our own soldiers, all civilians and even the enemies units if at all possible).

Lastly, when I say for defense or security reasons, I just mean to protect our cities/improvements from an attacking enemy and (in the case of security) to deal with rogue nations that are a clear and immediate threat to either of the two aforementioned things. We should also not go out of our way to avoid angering potentially war-waging countries, as we should not be bullied. Whenever possible, however, these issues and all issues around possible or actual war should be handled with a good deal of diplomacy.

kato can i just say u dont really know what your talking about

for example to quote u

(least amount of casualties to our own soldiers, all civilians and even the enemies units if at all possible) !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?!

i understand the first bit about OUR soldiers, but prey tell me kato why we shud give a duck about enemy soldiers?

See the thing is about killing civilians is that we reduce the foreign seed that enters nation when we take their cities and this also helps OUR culture, happiness and industry take off quicker.
(i love to see the pop up "some of babylons citizens have been killed")

personally i see u has a bleeding heart liberal who thinks he has an stomach for war but wud cave to our enemies demands give half a chance.

Hrm. Well whatever terminology you would like to apply. In person I'm sort of apolitical, to be honest.

Originally posted by Kato
I will join.

That being said, I am more aligned with CivGeneral's personal view rather than the ubiquitous "wage war to beat up the other players!" outlook. War should not be waged for wars sake, nor for conquering or even expansion. War is waged for defense and security reasons only, never to an extreme degree (each war should have a modest goal; for instance, to capture a city or two). War must be quick and as painless as possible (least amount of casualties to our own soldiers, all civilians and even the enemies units if at all possible).

Lastly, when I say for defense or security reasons, I just mean to protect our cities/improvements from an attacking enemy and (in the case of security) to deal with rogue nations that are a clear and immediate threat to either of the two aforementioned things. We should also not go out of our way to avoid angering potentially war-waging countries, as we should not be bullied. Whenever possible, however, these issues and all issues around possible or actual war should be handled with a good deal of diplomacy.

:confused:

This doesnt make any sense, you say your a warmonger, but you dont want to go to war. Second, potentially war-waging countries will ask for tribute whether they like you or not, and third, if you wage war for defense only, you want to kill the enemy soldiers so they are unlikely to declare soon after

Originally posted by stragegy_gamer


:confused:

This doesnt make any sense, you say your a warmonger, but you dont want to go to war.

I don't mean to be rude with this response, but it doesn't say anywhere in the National Order of Warmongers post that you would have to be a warmonger to join (please ignore the irony of that sentence, since it is only by coincidence that the NOW group has the word "Warmonger" in it). It specifically states that NOW is a group of citizens who are concerned about how we (Fanatica) wage war and for what reasons we wage war, NOT a group of people where all members should be crying for first blood.


Second, potentially war-waging countries will ask for tribute whether they like you or not, and third, if you wage war for defense only, you want to kill the enemy soldiers so they are unlikely to declare soon after

I assume the tribute response has to do with what I stated earlier about how we should not be bullied. I'm not saying that we should never give in to certain things, just that we should be diplomatic to the greatest extent possible, and then use war as a last ditch effort.

About killing enemy soldiers.. this is the second question I've gotten about this. All I am saying is that, from a position of preferred pacifism, it would realistically be most benefitial to kill as few people as possible, while still achieving all of our goals. Thus, I would prefer capturing our objectives early on and sueing for peace, rather than prolonging it just for the sake of destroying their armies. Enemy armies, when they need to be, should be disabled through the seizure of enemy holdings to cut finances and supply (whenever possible). From a computer game point of view, whether you kill those extra 3-4 enemy Knights or not is sort of unimportant if you finish the war one turn quicker.

It's sort of hard for most people to understand, but it actually is pretty simple. Wage the war to end the war, use war if (and only if) other means fail and do not be afraid to wage war (with the proper Means and Ends of war in mind).

Originally posted by CivGeneral

War is a legitimate form of foreign policy, aggressive and defensive.
[/B]

The thing is Kato, is that you are saying that you think war isnt a legit form of foriegn policy.
Second, if you capture one enemy city instead of killing 3 knights, the enemy is still in a good position to REDECLARE war. If you think the AI doesnt care if you go to war with them, think again.
The easiest two ways to stop an enemy from redeclaring war are to pepper them with gifts, or to reduce their empire by so much that they would be lacking critical resources and production.

BTW, if you captured a border city, you would maybe take 2-4 gold from them, whereas if you killed 3 knights, they would lose 210 shields and you would be in a good position to protect your border cities and/or capture more of their cities. If you were near one of their major production cities, i would still kill the knights, even though they might be rebuilt in 12 total turns, because if i did take the major city, i would not have to defend it from the knights

I will join.

No, you won't. ;)

Could we make it clear to new people that the previous game is over, and we're now planning for DGV? Like putting all the DGIV stuff in the archives and moving all the DG5 things into a new forum? This is getting very annoying.

until we get close to done with settings and rulesets, thunderfall wont make a new forum...

Indeed, we have to get everything figured out first...

ill join, and be as big a warmonger as i can be

okay now what did the 3 or 4 posts right above your post say??? ;) come back in a few moths when we may finally have got this thing started.

ohhh ohhh, pick me. I wanna join.
A good war isnt how many soldiers you have, its how you work your plan.
Trust me, I would be a great addition.

It's sort of hard for most people to understand, but it actually is pretty simple. Wage the war to end the war, use war if (and only if) other means fail and do not be afraid to wage war (with the proper Means and Ends of war in mind).
I wage war at the drop of a hat.
I dont wait until other means fail, I wage war for kicks.
;)
I wage war against land grabbers, I wage war against leaders that get stupid when it comes to trading luxuries or techs.
I wage war, just to wipe another civ off the map.

okay what did i just say? :rolleyes: this game has ended stay tuned for the nominations for the new game, though im not sure if there in the same forum or a new home.

I'll join, war is fun and I need to be active somehow

ARGH!!!

Read, people, READ! The game is OVER! :mad:

:lol: :lol: LOL! :lol: :lol:

This is somewhat amusing. :goodjob:

I don't think you shout loud enough BCLG. :p

OKAY STOP POSTING IN THIS THREAD, EVERYONE,

STOP POSTING THE GAME IS OVER

has everyone grasped the meaning now :rolleyes:

New Players: this citizens group is dead for the moment. If you post to join here, know that you wont be an actual member of the new group when it is founded when the new game starts.

;)