Thoughts on a Perma-war Civ?

As a few of you guys know, I enjoy thinking up new ideas for civ's. One idea I've toyed around with is that of a sort-of "reverse Venice" that has reduced trade options, and beefed-up options for things like conquering cities and demanding tribute from CS's. You can see one version of that idea in my Hittites post (down there in the sig).

Now, one even more extreme option would be a civ that's permanently at war with other civilizaitons. It's hardly a new idea. Those of you who played Moo2 (or even--shudder--Moo3) should be familiar with the concept. I'm wondering how feasible such a civ would be. With the Hittites, I kinda backed down and figured they should be able to make trade routes to city-states, because there's not an alternative to trade routes for gold in the early game (except for the possibility of demanding tribute up front instead of sending that caravan).

I'm still pondering though, is there a way to make it effective and fun--at least for the sort of player who would enjoy such a thing? There are certainly plenty of folks who go the early-rush route, and effectively are perma-warred for the early part of the game, so I figure it must be. It's just a matter of making sure the uniques take up the slack left by lack of trade routes and diplomatic options.

Interested in any thoughts on the subject.

This could be quite a good idea. As they aren't going to have any friends, then they should get a large bonus to warmongering, and gold, for that matter. The way I see it, is that the rest of the world has to team up against them or die. Can be interesting no matter if you're playing as them or not.

Maybe redo the Mongols then? They did kill/vassalize nearly everyone they came across and were pretty much unstoppable.

There a few ways to make gold outside of trade. The first and foremost is CS tribute. The other options are capturing cities, pillaging tiles, plundering trade units, and barb camps/ruins. If you complete Honor, there's gold for killing units. The UA would need to bump some of that to become the bread-and-butter income.

Thanks for the replies. I'd pretty much given up on this topic generating any interest (meanwhile, folks can't seem to stop talking about random wonders and getting replies for their efforts).

You could have a civ where instead of always being at war with everyone always has to be at war with someone, though they are allowed 10 turns of peace in between wars. So for example, you attack Denmark, make peace, then after ten turns a window pops up asking which civ you're going to declarr war on. That way, you could still have peaceful relations with one or two civs, while murdering the rest.

Very interesting idea. As a reverse Venice, it shouldn't have settlers as well.

My idea for the UA: "No extra unhappiness from conquered cities. Double the amount of gold for pillaging, capturing cities and plundering trade routes."
Unique Improvement: Fortress - Units inside the Fortress heal at double rate, adjacent military units heal 5 additional HP per turn.
Unique Unit: Sniper - Unique industrial unit with +1 Sight and +1 Range. Can only be seen by enemies units on adjacent tiles.

I think was be a good re-skinning for the Huns. Looking at the Huns, I can't help but feel like it represents some unfulfilled ambition. The UA is basically just "start with a free tech, get +1 hammer from pastures", which is not only weak but very prosaic considering they went to all the effort to come up with a mechanism for stealing city names. Seems like they're a good candidate for perma-war and a wasted opportunity in their current design.

Not being able to found cities could be pretty crippling to a war machine, so there'd need to be significant compensation. Actually, if you took Germany's UA, and gave it to the Huns, that would actually be a pretty good combo. They don't produce units, they convert them.

I wonder what real civ could that be?

Actually I have had this kind of idea thinking alone loudly in those forums, one day. It was not exactly about perma war, but about golden ages. Now, we can have runaway civs naturally that conquer the others, but it basically take the whole game to come at end. What I wanted then, was that that, could happen several times, a lot of times actually, in a single game. For a better simulation of empires rising and falling - my obsession. Those golden ages would give great advantages to a given civ, and particularly great military advantages. Again, this can be obtained in Civilizations by focusing on units and military techs at a point, but it's a one shot, after that you are pretty much backwarded and it can take a long time to get back to things. With such golden ages, the advantages are more sharp, more quick too, and the map can still experience short changes like the Greek empire.
I however never figured out how those GAs could be triggered. I believe, a mix of randomness and particular settings of maps. (like Arabs being better because they live in more hostile lands ?) I don't know, someone should look into the origins of Rome, and discover why they have been so successful militarily and why they developed this logic of conquests i guess.

The main link with this idea is that the AI would be programmed to gang up against such civs.

I was looking for warrior Native American tribes and one that I found was the Osage. From what I read, they were pretty much the Spartans of North America. They even tied their infants' head to boards just to make them look taller. And to tie the golden ages idea into the perma war idea, maybe thy could get a golden age whenever they capture a capital.

Maybe they can get gpt from all city-states they could bully regardless of how recently you last demanded tribute.

DudewiththeFood said:

Maybe they can get gpt from all city-states they could bully regardless of how recently you last demanded tribute.

Click to expand...

So a reworked Gunboat Diplomacy, in essence? Sounds like it could work. Alternately, you could go with a Feitora kind of route - let them build something in CS territory and when its occupied by a military unit, it earns GPT.

It would be interesting for a civ like this to have a unique courthouse. I can see some nice bonuses to make those cities you've conquered much more viable rather than painful to hold on to.

Or free courthouses

I think there's room for at least a couple of warmonger civs, Mongols and Huns are probably the 2 best options. The Civs just need to have a UA that compensates for reduced happiness and lower income from less trade routes.

awesome said:

Or free courthouses

Click to expand...

That's not very interesting though. If you're gunna have a civ different on this kinda scale you've really gotta commit to the differences. The Venetians they made into a trade powerhouse after tinkering with them, and gave them an uber-great person that ensures they play completely differently focusing on gold and GP points.

With a perma-war civ i would like it if there was a focus on being able to take cities without hurting yourself too much. Maybe having a seperate puppet like "vassal" mechanic that hurts you less. Or being able to do something special with cities you take. Maybe even wiping the need for courthouses and dishing about some of the population you've just conquered to your other cities.

I'd just love for there to be a real reason beyond the normal conditions for a perma-war civ to actual live up to its name.

Sure, I can relate to that. The concepts for the Hittites and Mughals in my sig tap into the notion of making an empire built on conquest viable and rewarding instead of just a big drain.