Create a civ that cannot declare war or conquer cities

The discussion in the Cree leader thread has started this idea for me. Originally it was to have the Cree not able to declare war, but I'd take it a step further and have a civ not able to conquer cities as well. Especially since it's easy to goad the AI into war and take all their cities as well. Another poster noted the Cree have been involved in offensive wars, so it doesn't have to be the Cree. It's too late to change them anyways. This civ feature would probably make more sense for Ghandi's India.

Obviously you have other abilities to make up for this restriction. I really hope Firaxis sees this and does create a civilization radically different like they did for Venice and Kongo. It may be too late for this expansion, but perhaps in the future. Maybe they could get a significant bonus to alliances, which would make it better for Rise and Fall, but I know it's too late for this XP.

I just want to see Firaxis be really bold, and create something unique. You can argue it limits versatility, especially on deity, but so what. I think unique civs are fun. I've played many games not starting wars or conquering cities, it would be interesting to have a civ designed around this mechanic.

What do you think? What bonuses would you give such a civ? Feel free to share your ideas.

 

Switzerland maybe? Make their UA something like this:

Swiss Confederation. The Swiss are unable to capture enemy cities or declare war except a war for reclaiming their own cities. When war is declared on the Swiss each Swiss city produces one free melee unit. When the Swiss become Suzerain of a city state they gain half that city states faith/science/gold/food/production as well the suzerain bonus.

 

Seems like the Swiss are the only reasonable option for this kind of Civ, though I could care less about them appearing in a Civ game.....

No unique Swiss language either too.

 

Swiss German from what I have read is quite unlike other versions of German to almost be its own language. Of course with Switzerland you can have the leader speaking a different language each time the screen pops up rotating between French, Italian, and Swiss German.

 

It would depend on which leader they pick though. I'm not really interested in any of the Swiss leaders I've seen suggested or used in mods, Dufour, Guisan, Zwingli included.

 

Moriori would fit the bill better than the Swiss IMO. They lived entirely under a nonviolent ethos.

 

But do they have a known leader?

 

Yes, Nunuku-whenua, the pacifist chief.

 

Probably should have strong defensive bonuses. A warmongerer (like me) go to war to prevent a civ to win or knock down a civ that has too much of an advantage in an era. If a civ has an advantage of some kind I would aim to take them out early as I did with Venice.

Maybe they could get automatic walls and units would lose strength just being on their territory

Also perhaps really strong loyalty so they can flip neighbours or get their own cities back if they should lose them

Ability to win with one of the other conditions. So science, culture or religion -
Need to think of an actual civ and then choose which one of these 3 to go with

I think in many ways Australia could be that civ. Just have to take away their ability to go to war except to liberate

 

Maybe an ability that lets you piggyback off of someone else's warmongering, the same way the Kongo can piggyback off of other players' religious game.

"You cannot declare war, capture cities, build encampment districts, or recruit great generals.
You may trade your original capital to another civilization.
Whenever another civilization controls your original capital, you gain science, culture, gold, and faith equal to the amount produced by all of the cities they have captured from other civilizations. Whenever that civilization expends a great general charge, you gain the benefit as well."

 

Jigonhsasee (Mother of Nations) or Deganawida (The Great Peacemaker) for the Iroquois would make since and they wouldn't have to use Hiawatha again.
Gandhi loves nukes in this game anyway, so is definitely out of the question.

 

I would have thought Switzerland is a paradise for someone with an interest in languages.

And besides Swiss German (which is only officially not a separate language, mostly because that has huge drawbacks), Switzerland offers 3 languages (two almost extinct) that haven‘t been in civ before. Although you won‘t find viable leaders that spoke them.
And Zwingli was involved in too many aggressive wars to lead a peaceful civ. Only leader options are an anonymus Federal Council or Escher in my opinion. If you into a leader with more story and ok with a non-leader von Flüe could have interesting abilities (like not declaring wars instead of giving it to the civ).

 

Well, they are all European/Indo-European languages, so my interest in them is not so great. If only Raetic had a living descendant!

 

I can only think of buddhist states for being truely non-violent. or.... Venice?

Not declaring war nor not conquering doesnt mean that he cannot plot, in my opinion.

I think a leader who never sought military might to accomplish what he wanted and only used underground influence to control everything can fit?

Sth like, he can have a stronger way to stir up rebels and disloyalty in other civs. This fits the new system of loyalty as it can seize cities without bloodshed.

If I propose the just-passed-away Thai monarch Bhumibol... will it contradict any policies? Just kidding there, but he truely was a powerful ruler who had no rivals (not even the military government sought to challenge him, obviously there was something behind), and yet no one knew his tricks. In his reign, he always took the role of mediator in civil conflicts. His reputation was almost deitified in Thailand.

 

Which Buddhist state was non-violent? Modern Bhutan?

 

Emmm... Buddhist theology is against killing, but I don't think that they really didn't rage wars. And yeah, Bhutan is peaceful because it just too small to start a significant conflict. I think Switzerland is a better representation of non-warring nation.

Or actually can we make Vatican into the game? You know, in the past the Pope was the best puppet master behind many european affairs. And the Vactican army was too small to defend on its own, so Vatican must use its religious influence to ask for help from other powers.

And in this way Vatican called for the crusaders, and many other holy wars, exchanging religious influence for armed services.

 

Historically speaking, such a pacifist ability wouldn't fit with Buddhist civilizations. They've been involved in plenty of violence too.

 

Indeed. I realize that too after a bit of research.

 

There has been consideration of a Swiss civ with such non-waring ability in the Design your own Civ VI civ thread some time a ago. Link: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/design-your-own-civ-vi-civ.572811/page-18#post-14741910

The main issue in such a civ is how is the non-waring ability balanced such that the civ is not capable of practically guaranteed victories early in the gamer in some cases and immediate losses in other cases. That is, how can be civ still maintain dynamism in some sense.

 

Can I comment on the kit itself? rather than the civ and ability choice?
It is a nice idea to try shut down one victory route completely and focus on the others.

But the point is, your Switzerland is currently pointing to no where, except for sitting peacefully.
Take reference to Kongo. They cannot win religiously but they have got fierce cultural advantage and also edge in other routes.

Or take my own design of Papal state that cannot rage war as an example.
Although it cannot conquer others in normal ways, it can still attempt various victory routes, in a slow or fast pace.
The important thing is, you have to get something fun to do despite being pacifest, instead of sitting for the whole game.