The Enemies Capital.

ShredZ · May 22, 2002, 14:50

Whats the big deal about capturing the enemies capital ? Everyone always talks about taking it out as if its a big deal, so there must be something Im missing...

I can see trying to split a Civ in two so that one half doesnt get all the resourses that the other does, also the capital will probably have most of the Great Wonders in it, but besides that, the Capital just moves to the next closest/biggest city ... right ?

Inverse Icarus · May 22, 2002, 15:06

Quote:

Originally posted by ShredZ
Whats the big deal about capturing the enemies capital ? Everyone always talks about taking it out as if its a big deal, so there must be something Im missing...

I can see trying to split a Civ in two so that one half doesnt get all the resourses that the other does, also the capital will probably have most of the Great Wonders in it, but besides that, the Capital just moves to the next closest/biggest city ... right ?

yes, the capital moves at no cost. they should make you PAY to move the capitial, ala civ2.

anyway, the capital city usually has a large number of culture points, and once it falls a lot of borders are shrunk, and cities wont flip back as easily.

but people do greatly overstate the importance of capturing the enemy capital... it really doesnt matter in the long run.

whats better is if you pillage all the roads around the enemy capital, so they cant trade with other civs. now thats smart

ChaotikVisions · May 22, 2002, 15:10

Heh, its just sentimental reasons really. Get attacked, or attack someone and I set a goal, so and sos capitol. If I want to end the war this is good because they're more likely to sign a peace treaty if you near there capitol, and if I want a strike a blow this is good, because it takes out a major center for production and possibly has wonders as well.

chrisgilbert · May 22, 2002, 17:53

or just nuke the crap out of it !

Sean · May 22, 2002, 18:00

yes, the capital moves at no cost. they should make you PAY to move the capitial, ala civ2.

I agree. The free movement of the capital is silly. Particularly, when the new Capital cities culture ballons out.

Jaybe · May 22, 2002, 18:41

Quote:

... Particularly, when the new Capital cities culture balloons out.

[MontyPython mode]
No, it doesn't!! (does it?)
It's just a free Palace, so the culture isn't going to BALLOOOOON out (not for awhile anyway).
[/MontyPython mode]

Due to corruption and trade mechanics, a civ always has to have a capital. The central government just moves. They meet in some rich guy's mansion (if there are any left) and don't really build a palace until after the war situation stabilizes.

JB

Coracle · May 22, 2002, 20:56

This is one of the most absurd parts of Civ 3.

I once attacked the Aztecs. I took their capital on FIVE consecutive turns as it jumped from one little town to another at no cost.

If they have a capital they have an automatic palace. And hence, we see that this is another of Soren's stupid "fixes" for the massive corruption problem.

Civ 2 handled this much better. Attacking the capital should indeed be very important - just ask the Germans in WW II if grabbing off Minsk was as big a deal as getting Moscow, which they never could take.

Theseus · May 22, 2002, 21:04

On the one hand, I agree... capturing a capitol in Civ2 was cool.

On the other hand, from a trading perspective, the current implementation works quite nicely.

Next.

notyoueither · May 22, 2002, 23:27

Why take the capitol?

That is where you will drive the most of your enemies before you and hear the loudest lamentations of their women!

It's also usually the best city of a civ. Kill it and the civ is usually ensured to be on the road to vassalage.

One other thing is that you will usually find some of the Wonders built by a civ in the original capitol.

Or... because it's there.

campmajor! · May 23, 2002, 07:07

The only problem with capturing a civ's capitol is that it has such a big culture that it will flip back soon....

The Eliminator · May 23, 2002, 12:18

Capturing or razing a capital is a big deal, and it should be treated as such. The civ should automatically split in (at least) two - same goes for the human player. You should get a score bonus, a happiness bonus, a tech bonus, and a relatively large cash bonus - nothing like "raiding the vaults for 78 gold."

One side of the split nation should immediately sue for peace, while the other one fights on. When you enter their capital, regardless whether or not you raze it, you should get at least half the size of the city in workers, symbolizing refugees and defectors. Permanent damage to the civ should be the result of losing their capital.

These above ideas should apply to fighting in the "middle" middle ages and beyond. For ancient times (before cities really start to grow), the victimized civ should suffer a major blow, by causing uncontrollable civil disorder for four or five turns, but they should not be permanently damaged at that age.

This added element would make war between nations on the same continent much more serious.

Akka · May 23, 2002, 13:06

Capturing the capital should put the government in anarchy, just like if the player launched a revolution.
Not too imbalancing and still giving a good incentive to go for the target.

Zachriel · May 23, 2002, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Capturing the capital should put the government in anarchy, just like if the player launched a revolution.
Not too imbalancing and still giving a good incentive to go for the target.

Good suggestion.

Stuie · May 23, 2002, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
They meet in some rich guy's mansion (if there are any left) and don't really build a palace until after the war situation stabilizes.

Unless the government is communist, then they meet in the nearest factory.

I like the "throw the loser into anarchy" idea. It would be a nice way to abstract the transition to a new capital.

Jaybe · May 23, 2002, 14:07

In addition to Anarchy for the victim, a little morale boost (less war weariness) for the conqueror.

petey · May 23, 2002, 18:02

The enemy's capitol is where most of their production points generally come from, so if you grab it, you got the best chance of taking over some Wonders, which you need to do at higher levels as you can't keep up with the AI production.

Also, as civs are built outwards from the capitol, it's a good way to rip their empire in two, put your borders up there and slow down their units.

Also, they'll try and take the capitol back, so you have less armies attacking your own cities.

Also, it's fun to conquer peoples' capitols

ShredZ · May 23, 2002, 18:24

HEY! A friend just reminded me that when you take a civs capitol, it destroys their Spaceship!

^^^ Now thats some good knowledge right there... might actually come in handy one time.

Theseus · May 23, 2002, 20:03

Anecdotally, AI civ capitols are usually on VERY good sites. That's reason enough for me, right there.

Also, although the capitol has to move to support the trading model, it is possible to "push" the capitol into the least effective position from a corruption perspective.

Lastly, there's nothin' like stirring it up by giving a capitol to that civ's worst enemy (other than you)!!

grapedog · May 23, 2002, 20:15

If you destroy a city with a wonder will the wonder be gone for good? I would sooner raze the capitol and move on to more razing, instead of garrison it and suffer constant attacks unless I was going to try and sue for peace...how long would THAT last!

Hmm, forbidden palace in your enemies capitol ought to help with keeping it on your side...

Coracle · May 23, 2002, 20:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Anecdotally, AI civ capitols are usually on VERY good sites. That's reason enough for me, right there. . .

That's quite an assumption.

Capitals are invariably built whereever the game starts you at. Not always the most optimal position in terms of terrain, and sometimes at the tip of a long peninsula; thus, much of the palace's corruption-reducing is wasted.

In Civ 2 I was once bogged down in a massive war with Russia. We each had some minor allies. So, I sneaked across the ocean three fully loaded transports, with huge carrier and other naval support, and assaulted Moscow - which I stormed into after heavy fighting. Russia split into civil war, and that one amphibious attack decided the war. Such a clever move and its results could never occur with Civ 3.

Inverse Icarus · May 23, 2002, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by grapedog
If you destroy a city with a wonder will the wonder be gone for good? I would sooner raze the capitol and move on to more razing, instead of garrison it and suffer constant attacks unless I was going to try and sue for peace...how long would THAT last!

Hmm, forbidden palace in your enemies capitol ought to help with keeping it on your side...

i often said that capturing an enemy capital should make the captured city a forbidden palace type thing, therefore the new empire would have less corruption and whatnot... but it couldnt automove then.

notyoueither · May 24, 2002, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by grapedog
If you destroy a city with a wonder will the wonder be gone for good?

Yes.

Theseus · May 24, 2002, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

That's quite an assumption.

Capitals are invariably built whereever the game starts you at. Not always the most optimal position in terms of terrain, and sometimes at the tip of a long peninsula; thus, much of the palace's corruption-reducing is wasted.

In Civ 2 I was once bogged down in a massive war with Russia. We each had some minor allies. So, I sneaked across the ocean three fully loaded transports, with huge carrier and other naval support, and assaulted Moscow - which I stormed into after heavy fighting. Russia split into civil war, and that one amphibious attack decided the war. Such a clever move and its results could never occur with Civ 3.

Your point being?

I don't think you read my post right... I was pointing out that the AI civs' capitols are often on optimum sites.

I would of thought that'd be right up your alley...

Cyclotron · May 24, 2002, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
In Civ 2 I was once bogged down in a massive war with Russia. We each had some minor allies. So, I sneaked across the ocean three fully loaded transports, with huge carrier and other naval support, and assaulted Moscow - which I stormed into after heavy fighting. Russia split into civil war, and that one amphibious attack decided the war. Such a clever move and its results could never occur with Civ 3.

In this case, you made a move that any player could have made (attack the capital). It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to do that. And yet, you make that one attack and the whole AI comes tumbling down. Civil wars were a huge exploit in Civ2, and such a commonplace strategy should not be rewarded with the gross destruction of an entire civ in Civil war. That's another reason the AI in Civ2 was so poor...

So, now that you have Civ3, you'll have to actually fight a war to win instead of unloading a few marines into one city. It's a shame, isn't it Coracle?

AJ Corp. The FAIR · May 24, 2002, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by ShredZ
Whats the big deal about capturing the enemies capital ? Everyone always talks about taking it out as if its a big deal, so there must be something Im missing...

...

The biggest deal -if your army is strong enough, I mean- is the risk of a flip back occuring as the AI's capital will be instantly elsewhere, usually right next to the previous capital (palace jumps always to best developped/largets cities --> usually very near of ancient capital) that you have just conquered.

If the AI civ is almost definitely beaten, you shouldn't mind garrisoning too many units in the previous capital, but instead focus on 'terminating' the civ completely --> no more flip back risks. But if you're adversary is really dangerous/big, crippling the capital (bombing/pillaging all roads) is more important than actually capturing it.

I would have beter liked this though:

to capture a capital should be a major (temporary) KO for the civ, resulting in an extra capital for the attacker (maybe only for a certain period of time), instead of a palace jump for the pushed back civ.

It would make capturing capitals more important/strategic and it would reflect reality better. (eg. all major wars: the capital always reflects the ability to fight; to lose it almost always equals losing the war, at least for a certain period).

AJ

grapedog · May 24, 2002, 13:42

Maybe, if there is not one already, have a serious drop in culture just for losing or forced relocating of a capitol city. What culture wants to see their capitol destroyed and moved. Or perhaps all cities suffer 1/2 culture for the remainder of the war until the capitol is taken back. Disheartened, they look to their neighbors lands wondering why their leader sucks...

Jon Shafer · May 24, 2002, 16:38

The loss of the capital city for civs throughout time was a huge moral hit. Production would wane, troops wouldn't fight as well, etc., all major industrial and government buildings were located in the capital. In history the loss of the capital was a huge hit, but in this game it doesn't matter one bit...

Zachriel · May 24, 2002, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
The loss of the capital city for civs throughout time was a huge moral hit. Production would wane, troops wouldn't fight as well, etc., all major industrial and government buildings were located in the capital. In history the loss of the capital was a huge hit, but in this game it doesn't matter one bit...

That's what Napoleon thought when he took Moscow.

zulu9812 · May 24, 2002, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by grapedog
Hmm, forbidden palace in your enemies capitol ought to help with keeping it on your side...

If you capture a city with a Forbidden Palace, but you've already got one, do you then get two?

Lucilla · May 24, 2002, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812

If you capture a city with a Forbidden Palace, but you've already got one, do you then get two?

I always thought the FP is a small wonder and that gets lost once you capture the city. But I'm not sure whether it can be rebuild by the civ who lost it.