Why is it people make taking an enemy capital such a priority? I understand if it is near by, but people tend to plow very deep just to take a capital. Despite there are two close cities near your own capital that would be much easier to take and maintain, without culture problems, etc.

Is there some sort of bonus for taking a capital? The greater the distance the more corruption etc, unless there are some added bonuses. Which leads me to wonder, if I capture a city that had a forbidden palace, would there be any sort of benefit here to the player capturing it? Besides the obvious fact that the AI no longer has it.

I usually try to take the cities one by one and work my way up to the enemy capitals.

Why is it people make taking an enemy capital such a priority? I understand if it is near by, but people tend to plow very deep just to take a capital. Despite there are two close cities near your own capital that would be much easier to take and maintain, without culture problems, etc.

Is there some sort of bonus for taking a capital? The greater the distance the more corruption etc, unless there are some added bonuses. Which leads me to wonder, if I capture a city that had a forbidden palace, would there be any sort of benefit here to the player capturing it? Besides the obvious fact that the AI no longer has it.

I usually try to take the cities one by one and work my way up to the enemy capitals.

A capital is usually located in an ideal site. Taking it would be a big plus and a big blow to your enemy's economy.

The AI seems so stupid that it builds its capitals often 1 square away from the shore. Anyhow, you take it, and it automatically moves the capital bonus to another location, so you aren't really taking its capital anyhow.

Though I didn't really notice in the past of capitals starting in real ideal locations. I'll try and pay more attention to it. I know I hardly ever get the resources I want/need in my own starting locations.

The AI seems so stupid that it builds its capitals often 1 square away from the shore. Anyhow, you take it, and it automatically moves the capital bonus to another location, so you aren't really taking its capital anyhow.

Though I didn't really notice in the past of capitals starting in real ideal locations. I'll try and pay more attention to it. I know I hardly ever get the resources I want/need in my own starting locations.

You are taking something. Given the fact that the capital is perhaps the most developed, you can slow down your enemy if you capture it.

I like them to make my GP farm.

The AI seems so stupid that it builds its capitals often 1 square away from the shore. Anyhow, you take it, and it automatically moves the capital bonus to another location, so you aren't really taking its capital anyhow.

Though I didn't really notice in the past of capitals starting in real ideal locations. I'll try and pay more attention to it. I know I hardly ever get the resources I want/need in my own starting locations.
I quite agree with you actually. I find that gunning for capitals is often more trouble than it's worth.
For one, they tend to be overly defended. AI's are (too) fond of settling on hills as well. Add to that additional culture in the capital and the troops required for capturing a capital is often sufficient to overthrow two, if not three other cities.

When a capital is very close to yours (= low maintenance cost) and easily accessible it is probably worth the effort but otherwise I tend to leave capitals alone until I can construct catapults and preferably have discovered code of laws too.

As for crippling your opponent: capturing several cities and pillaging the remaining ones is more than sufficient to take any civ out of the equation. Two pairs of axes + spears or several chariots can mostly plunder at their leisure thus disabling the opponent just as much, and much quicker as well for the most part.

it might sometimes be the right thing to have cities 1 square off from the sea... it doesnt do that much to be close to the sea anyways...

It's usually a perfect city site, and a good city overall with wonders and such, massive blow to enemy economy for taking their most develloped city...

Enemy cities near you usually are rubbish cities with not enough resources near, I just tend to raze them as they are not worth the maintanance costs...

I like them to make my GP farm.

indeed. liberate two extra capitals and you'll need to be like george w. bush if you wanna loose...

The capital usually has the most culture of all the enemy cities, taking it blows a huge chunk of enemy cultural sphere and makes taking the rest easier.

That and of course the ideal city spot as mentioned earlier.

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?

And to make things worse, it was NOT an ideal location. I had trouble getting it above a population of 8 for the whole game.

Boy, had I gone all over half the world to take that city I would have been VERY pissed.

Main reason why I always go first after capital is simple - it is always best city productionwise and it has best defences also. And AI really loves to whip some extra defenders, so later there is more to kill. IMHO it is wiser to face 3-4 archers with 40% cultural defence first, than take other cities first and face 6+ archers then. And after capital hass fallen, AI can't recover. Other cities don't have enough production, and you can pick them easily one by one. So always capital first in ancient/classical wars, even if you are going to raze it. Later eras it does not matter.

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?

Don't forget that when you take a city, some of the buildings (sometimes every one of them) are destroyed. I think this is what just happened.

Also, the capitol situated in the capital produces culture, from the start of the game; and it's automatically re-allocated if you take the city.

I remember this from Civ III, I guess it carries over to Civ IV, would be nice if there was a calculation somewhere on this. I guess there is.

I'll continue more experimentation. I had assumed that perhaps alexander being a warmonger, just didn't plan on building anything and that is why I got absolutely nothing. But not even a barracks was present?

If I'm correct, each building has a chance of curviving in this kind of situation. Perhaps the exact mecanism is given somewhere in the forums, but I'm not sure. At least, this is the case for nuking.

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?

And to make things worse, it was NOT an ideal location. I had trouble getting it above a population of 8 for the whole game.

Boy, had I gone all over half the world to take that city I would have been VERY pissed.

Culture building are ALWAYS razed when you conquer a city, and captured wonders don't produce culture until given back to their buiders.

it doesnt do that much to be close to the sea


It was that kind of thinking which, on a recent isolated start, caused me to build no coastal cities whatsoever. I only noticed after I beelined Optics and couldn't build any caravels. :trophy:

Why I take capitols:

1. Generally uniquely situated for large growth with good production or commerce potential.

2. Enemy has spend more time developing this city than any other, it's a BURN.

3. If the civ in question has built the Pyramids, they're likely to be in the capitol: Hello Police State!

4. Take the capitol and you get rid of that culture bubble pressing on your other recent acquisitions.

Losing a capital can be quite crippiling. I've lost my capital before it was my largest and most productive city and it contained resources like horses, copper, and iron, and it badly crippled my war effort, fourtnatley I managed to take it back, but the damage was already done and that was all I could do before I had to make peace.

Why I take capitols:
1: I'm a ninja!
2: I'm a ninja!
3: I'm a ninja!
4: I'm a ninja!

:D :D :D

5: I feel that it demoralizes the enemy. I know it doesn't really, but it still makes me feel good. :)

The Ninja :ninja:

There's absolutely a logistical consideration when striking deep into enemy territory to take a capital. There's also the issue that, depending on how many civs you play against, said capital may not only be deep in enemy territory, but also surrounded by territory that isn't yours (but isn't the enemy's territory). The result can be that taking the capital simply gets you a good city but one that you can't develop effectively, due to your neighbors' culture bubbles keeping you penned in. So, despite the great positioning, you can't take advantage of it because of the neighboring culture.

I was playing on the Earth 18 Civs map recently and, as the British, took Paris. Major blow to Louis, and gave me some nice resources, but Izzie to the south is pressing her culture on me with Madrid, and Freidrich to the northeast has Berlin (and other cities) pushing the cultural boundaries back so that, even though a square is only 36% German, I still can't use it yet. The real pisser of all of this is that there's some really nice resources there, but I can't get access to 'em.

I like them to make my GP farm.

Yeah, I usually do this too. I always build cottages in my capital to get some early commerce going, but I want a city in a good location with a lot of food to turn into my GP farm. I usually try to take a nearby capital for this purpose.

I like taking capitals because they contain a huge stack of defenders - my catapults chew them up - whereas taking smaller cities more lightly defended gives your cats a smaller target

second you deprive the enemy of a huge resource (especially if it contains wonders)

the capital can generally turn out units the quickest, and unless your fighting warriors with tanks fighting more units is a bad idea.

The Ninja, I have a ninjish question for you... How do you suppress vestibular, or equilibrial abnormalities during a kill, so that aerial acrobatic maneuvers don't cause you to fall victim to yourself?

the capital can generally turn out units the quickest, and unless your fighting warriors with tanks fighting more units is a bad idea.

Not if you have those loyal, dedicated catapults :)

All you need to know about why you take an enemy capital is summed up by watching a wolf or other predator take down a gazelle or other prey. Once you hamstring (i.e., cripple) your prey, you can devour it at your leisure...

Based on the ALC and Immortal Challenges I've read recently, I think the players are too single-minded about getting a capital. It's a better military decision to keep your enemy on one side because it allows you to focus your military forces. The amount of production you deny your opponent by hitting core cities first is attenuated by the fact that you're probably splitting your own forces to cover a larger flank.

I think it's an absurd notion to claim that capturing the enemy capital secures your victory, as if taking closer cities first jeopardizes it. No player fights a war they can't win. It's just a matter of how quickly and with how many losses.

This isn't to say I save a capital for last, I'm just saying the production capability of a city isn't as signifigant a concern as it's geographic locations. The order you take cities should be that which minimizes your exposure and keeps your military forces concentrated. If I divert from that rule, it's to get good cities before a capitulation or deny strategic resources.

^^^^
IMHO it's not single-minded at all. Usually you go for capital only when executing early rush, and you should be able to capture capital within 2-3 turns. There might be a city between the capitals, but it is usually able to send one pillagers, which definitely is not a problem. And your reinforcement can easily take that minor city while your main stack advances to other cities.

As I mentioned earlier, later it is less important to which city attack first.

Based on the ALC and Immortal Challenges I've read recently, I think the players are too single-minded about getting a capital. It's a better military decision to keep your enemy on one side because it allows you to focus your military forces. The amount of production you deny your opponent by hitting core cities first is attenuated by the fact that you're probably splitting your own forces to cover a larger flank.

I think it's an absurd notion to claim that capturing the enemy capital secures your victory, as if taking closer cities first jeopardizes it. No player fights a war they can't win. It's just a matter of how quickly and with how many losses.

This isn't to say I save a capital for last, I'm just saying the production capability of a city isn't as signifigant a concern as it's geographic locations. The order you take cities should be that which minimizes your exposure and keeps your military forces concentrated. If I divert from that rule, it's to get good cities before a capitulation or deny strategic resources.

Taking an enemy capital is 95% of the time the best plan, followed by their other large cities. Large cities = greater potential to whip, draft, and build units. Less units = easier win for you. It's easy to mop up fringe cities after. Why let the AI build a bunch more units while you take out their insignificant cities first?

Furthermore, you shouldn't have to split your forces. Be quick and efficient. Plan the shortest distance to their capital before declaring. If they do send a stack at your empire (rare) then whip units to defend while you take out their lightly-defended empire...

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?

Religion produces culture. Duh.

it might sometimes be the right thing to have cities 1 square off from the sea... it doesnt do that much to be close to the sea anyways...
Sometimes, but not usually. The issue isn't "close" or "far" it's how many squares away. Being 2 squares away from the coast is acceptable since your fat cross will not overlap any coastal tiles. Being on the coast is also good since you can build lighthouses, workboats, etc. and take advantage of the coastal tiles that are in your fat cross. But being 1 square away you will have some overlap, but will not be able to build a lighthouse, so all those coastal tiles are a net loss of food and you can only take advantage of seafood resources if some other coastal city creates the workboat.

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?
The capital has the palace which produces culture, happiness and commerce. When you take the city, the palace transfers to some other enemy city, so it won't be there for you to look at. Even if Alex didn't build any culture producing buildings, (which, as mentioned, are always destroyed) this would be the case.

Based on the ALC and Immortal Challenges I've read recently, I think the players are too single-minded about getting a capital. It's a better military decision to keep your enemy on one side because it allows you to focus your military forces. The amount of production you deny your opponent by hitting core cities first is attenuated by the fact that you're probably splitting your own forces to cover a larger flank.

I think it's an absurd notion to claim that capturing the enemy capital secures your victory, as if taking closer cities first jeopardizes it. No player fights a war they can't win. It's just a matter of how quickly and with how many losses.

This isn't to say I save a capital for last, I'm just saying the production capability of a city isn't as signifigant a concern as it's geographic locations. The order you take cities should be that which minimizes your exposure and keeps your military forces concentrated. If I divert from that rule, it's to get good cities before a capitulation or deny strategic resources.

I don't know about ALC and Immortal Challenges, but I have to agree with the rest of it. There's probably more reason in the early game to try and go straight to the capital. But I hate taking any city and being engulfed by enemy culture. What's the point? You will have to take or raze the surrounding cities anyway. It's much easier to take or raze them in order, keeping your forces concentrated and mobile (i.e. not surrounded by enemy culture on all sides).

Mobility is especially crucial if there is any possiblity that some other Civ will declare war on you. If the majority of your military is deep in enemy territory, engulfed by enemy culture, it will take forever to respond to the new threat. That's one of the reasons I try to include workers in my attacking force, to build roads as my stack progresses.

On higher levels, you might lose your entire invasion army when you travel deep into enemy territory for the capital since the AIs will pound you with piles of siege. Even if you take the capital, you will lose it fast without immediate reinforcements.

So going straight for the capital deep in enemy territory is only for very low levels (probably below Noble) when you have armies 3 times larger than AI's And if you need that pyrimid right away.

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.

Prior to large invasion try convert enermy cities to your religion, it takes longer term planning, but it will give you invaluable info(almost like free spies everywhere) after the invasion starts.

As mentioned before - going straight for the capitals on higher levels is plain stupid. I used to do it myself, but only because I thought taking the capital has the same effect as it used to in Civ1 and Civ2 - the player with no capital could not collect any taxes - so no income, or research, until they built a new palace. In Civ4 you get no such bonus. I actually almost lost a game because of going for the capital with a huge army, only to have them pull the Alamo sh&t later on after the capture.

As briliantly stated by another poster - you should eat at your enemy piece by piece, so that your front is as small as possible, and you can concentrate your forces in one spot. Throwing your army in the middle of enemy territory is a suicide mission. You're denying your troops quick reinforcements, and end up with a zero culture city that's just waiting to flip...

Their capitial is usually the city with the most buildings, wonders and improvements. It's the biggest net gain for you and a huge loss for them.

On higher levels, you might lose your entire invasion army when you travel deep into enemy territory for the capital since the AIs will pound you with piles of siege. Even if you take the capital, you will lose it fast without immediate reinforcements.

So going straight for the capital deep in enemy territory is only for very low levels (probably below Noble) when you have armies 3 times larger than AI's And if you need that pyrimid right away.

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.

Prior to large invasion try convert enermy cities to your religion, it takes longer term planning, but it will give you invaluable info(almost like free spies everywhere) after the invasion starts.

I would say this is fairly rare. In most of my games, even later in the game, I can usually get a pretty direct route to the capital. I may have to bypass a city or two, but that's no big deal. If they pound me with siege, whatever. I have a mixed army and I bring along a medic-three, so my units heal while I am tearing down the cultural defenses of the capital. Suicide some siege, mop up, and away you go. With the capital sunk, it's only a matter of time before you mop up their fringe cities.

The alternative is you take the 1-2 cities along the way to the capital. During the turns while you are taking the cities: 1) You are losing units taking the cities; and 2) The AI is building/whipping more units in its capital quickly, which means that you may be unable to take the capital once you get there.

If you go for the capital first you can take those 2-3 cities with less troops than if you go for the fringe cities first. This is because it takes longer for the AI to build/whip troops in the underdeveloped, fringe cities meaning the AI will have less units overall.

When it becomes apparent that you have sufficient units to accomplish the goals of the war (total elimination of the enemy, capitulation, etc) - switch to caste system and run max artists in either your highest GPP city or another if you want that city to make it's intended GP or a city that needs some culture of its own. If you use a city with GPP already, you might get that GP super early and have to wait for the artist to pop next. Drop a culture bomb in your shiny new city and enjoy the fruits of a fully functioning 10 pop without troublesome culture or revolt time.

If im using QUICK turn mode, then my captured cities won't be in anarchy for long anyhow. I think it may be a waste of a GP then.

I play on quick gamespeed alot, and cities are still in anarchy for about 8 turns, at least, when I capture a big one like a capital. Let's look at what the GP brings you:

1. Cultural superiority for many tiles. This allows you to work many good tiles, (eliminating starvation and providing significant hammer + commerce production). It also means that any attempt to retake the city will be moving very slowly (in enemy territory).

2. Additional production. A city of 8-10 population produces how many hammers and commerce per turn, multiply by number of turns the city would have been in revolt. Typically, this accounts for 50+ hammers and 50+ commerce over the course of what would be revolt. Add to that whipping, specialists, or any other fancy stuff and quite alot is produced in a mere 8 turns. If, for example, you had 8 cities, this is similar in affect to avoiding a turn of anarchy empire-wide.

3. Land = power.

4. Leftover satallite cities of your target will find themselves crushed by culture, unable to produce, and unable to quickly reinforce each other.

5. Other civs lingering in the area (with a settler and a couple archers) will be unable to settle annoying new border cities because they cannot settle in someone else's culture. Perventing the appearence of 1, 2, or even 3 new border cities in open culture tiles 2 away from your new city is almost enough benefit in itself.

I think some people are are not thinking straight !

There is no rule saying you should go for the capital first.
But, as futurehermit said, in 95% of the cases, you ensure the win (of this war at least) by doing so.

someone mentionned the last ALC.
Look how easy it was to finish china after taking it's capital!
I just don't understand how someone can argue the other way round, it's so obvious!

Some rules of thumb in this matter:
- you don't want to wander into enemy territory too long (exception if you want a pillage war only).
- you don't want to attack a city defended by more units than you have = you want to take cities fast, not giving your opponent time to reinforce.
- you want to win something = capturing lowly peripheral cities isn't a goal.

Applying those 3 rules of thumb, you find that except in the situation where the enemy's core cities are more than 3 turns away, it's not a good idea to spend time taking small cities before hitting the core cities.
Why?
1) because the AIs start building loads of units when you declare
2) most of those units will be finished in core cities, not in peripheral ones
3) most of those cities will go reinforce the capital.

conclusion : if you intend to capture the capital, you need to go there asap.

funny that i get here now...

last night i lost my entire offensive army because of going too deep into FDR's land. he was finished, i seperated my stack for Chicago, Boston and Seattle when Monty attacks ME on Roosevelts lands...

while he could fly with his 25+ HA's over FDR's lands i was a sitting duck. lost everything which i owned of America.

Live by the sword...

funny that i get here now...

last night i lost my entire offensive army because of going too deep into FDR's land. he was finished, i seperated my stack for Chicago, Boston and Seattle when Monty attacks ME on Roosevelts lands...

while he could fly with his 25+ HA's over FDR's lands i was a sitting duck. lost everything which i owned of America.

Live by the sword...

live by the sword and check montie ;)

Did an experiment last game. Took over an English capital. That's great and all, except that it was a huge drain on my monies due to the long distance. Then I got swarmed by culture anyhow. Ended up bankrupting myself and lost my whole army doing so as I couldn't fund it anymore.

If you can assemble an army, go straight and capture an AI's capital 10 tiles away from your cultural border, and hold on to it for 20 turns, the game is not a challenge. On higher levels(immortal+), you have to fight AIs with higher power points than you EVERY game, which means they have more units than you and up-to-date. Tech rate is high, so very often when you travel the 10 tiles, you are up against new unit types with your old units. You get pounded by all kinds of units, siege first, then rifles, calvaries, infantry and etc, so you will lose units fast, at least lose the ability to fight effectively. Every large city you bypass pose serious threat, every tile you advance means you are getting into a deeper trap. Your army travels 1 tile per turn, Ais calvary travels 6 tiles per turn pre railroad. They can gather resource from 5-6 cities per turn against your single army. It is 95% suicide in such situiations to go straight for the capital.

The better way is to advance steadily, choose strategic targets along the way to capital, many AI cities have good resources/wonders/tiles, plan the best route, capture these strategic cities along the way, fortify/reinforce/reduce AI couter attack. Since you always fight near your cultural border, you are much safer if a second AI declares on you, you can quickly move your forces around to reinforce the weak points.

In real life military strategy, you face grave danger if you send your large force deep into enemy(with on par military resources) territory without taking all the strong-holds nearby, without securing your supply line, without strong reinforcements. You will quickly be surrounded by well corrdinated enemy from ALL direction and annihilated.

Every game is very different, the strategies are also very different depending on the game type, level, speed, civ, AIs, starting location and etc.

On higher levels, you might lose your entire invasion army when you travel deep into enemy territory for the capital since the AIs will pound you with piles of siege. Even if you take the capital, you will lose it fast without immediate reinforcements.

So going straight for the capital deep in enemy territory is only for very low levels (probably below Noble) when you have armies 3 times larger than AI's And if you need that pyrimid right away.

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.

I think that you don't understand the circumstances when going straight to the capital is optimal. It is optimal only in the very beginning of the game, when capitals are clearly the best cities. The situation that you describe is about medieval times, when you can't move your stack next to the capital. If AI has a circle of cities around the capital, your approach is definitely the right one.

But in the very beginning, when early rushes must be made on higher levels (emperor and higher), one should almost always go directly to the capital. There are very few cases where you are not able to march your stack of axes next to a capital, say 1-3 tiles away, if ancient/classical war is in your mind. Usually you can bypass minor AI cities easily, because they are not producing any culture yet.

Did an experiment last game. Took over an English capital. That's great and all, except that it was a huge drain on my monies due to the long distance. Then I got swarmed by culture anyhow. Ended up bankrupting myself and lost my whole army doing so as I couldn't fund it anymore.

Why would you attack a city that early in the game when you are so far from the enemy capital?

Going for the enemy capital is the right move, but don't attack a civ that is that far from you!!!

If you have that much space, just build your own cities for awhile until later in the game. THEN go for the capital when you can afford to wipe them out and keep their cities.

I still disagree with those who say that not going for the capital is a good idea later in the game. Sure, if Monty dogpiles you, you can get your stack wiped out. But is that the fault of going for the capital OR is it the fault of poor diplomacy? Why didn't you massage relations with Monty and have him as your ally in that war??? I routinely bypass marginal cities to go for the core of an empire later in the game, usually with cavalry (fast-moving) when they have longbows. I take out the core of their empire and then the rest is mop-up duty. Why would I give them time to whip some pikes in their core cities???

I think that you don't understand the circumstances when going straight to the capital is optimal. It is optimal only in the very beginning of the game, when capitals are clearly the best cities. The situation that you describe is about medieval times, when you can't move your stack next to the capital. If AI has a circle of cities around the capital, your approach is definitely the right one.

But in the very beginning, when early rushes must be made on higher levels (emperor and higher), one should almost always go directly to the capital. There are very few cases where you are not able to march your stack of axes next to a capital, say 1-3 tiles away, if ancient/classical war is in your mind. Usually you can bypass minor AI cities easily, because they are not producing any culture yet.

I am just giving examples to show that the claim: " You should always go staight for enemy capital first" is wrong.

Your claim about going for the enemy capital first being wrong is wrong :lol:

Did an experiment last game. Took over an English capital. That's great and all, except that it was a huge drain on my monies due to the long distance. Then I got swarmed by culture anyhow. Ended up bankrupting myself and lost my whole army doing so as I couldn't fund it anymore.

the idea is to take the capital first, not meaning to take only the capital.

What you do is :
- mass a stack able to take one city
- start building reinforcements
- attack the capital, take it fast
- heal, send the survivors minus a few (1 is often enough) defenders to the other cities
- finish the AI.

I agree with those who point out that the 'capital rush' is a much more viable option earlier in any game.

Very early in the game, when you have axemen and possibly chariots up against archers, it is great to be able to take the capital first thing. The other nearby cities often won't have any true offensive units to counter, there likely won't be a huge culture push from these remaining cities, and you can more easily employ a strategy of resource denial. Further, if you give the AI time while taking/razing smaller cities, you will have double the amount of defenders in the capital along with walls to be sure. A nice side-effect of taking the capital straight away is that I often find workers hiding in the capital - nice to obtain and nice to deny the enemy.

Later, the battles might be early siege (cats) along with swords/axes/macemen and possibly elephants and perhaps you will be up against archers/axes/spears and maybe even longbows/pikes/crossbows. This is still a good time to hit the capital in my mind. Pillaging and resource denial again becomes key, and you can bet the amount of defenders in the captial will multiply exponentially if one takes too long to reach it. Again, the satellite cities can be contained and even cut off for easier pickings by reinforcements, and with resource denial they should not be able to produce many (if any) offensive units to challenge your stack or your cities. The AI will produce some siege and won't need resources for these, but they seem to make poor use of cats and trebs at this stage and never coordinate well with their offense.

After this stage, the capital beeline becomes more challenging. Facing strong mounted units, more powerful siege, and larger cities that can whip quicker and usually already have a load of units in them means that a moving stack may face a fair amount of resistance on the way in. Further, resource denial becomes more difficult as there are likely several sources of these - not to mention what they might be able to obtain by trade. Also, the gunpowder units are not dependent on resources and can be made with impunity - and muskets/rifles/infantry are much better at counter-attacking at this level than their bow-and-arrow counterparts of yesteryear. There is also the diplomatic question at this level and higher where all the civs have likely been met and you run the risk of demerits with neighbors who may decide that your stretched army is no match for theirs.

In fact, later in the game I might declare war at times and just keep my units holed up in a city that I know the AI will target. Let them smash their units around and die first and then move onward to pick off cities by proximity first.

So, in essence, I think the "take capital first" strategy's usefulness is directly related to how early in the game you might be.

I don't think it's about early or late.
It's about doable or not.
It's true though that early it's often doable, and later not so often, because you'd have to spend 10 turns walking into enemy territory to reach it.

But if the capital is coastal, I go for it first thing even in the 1900es.

Taking the enemy capital is probably the biggest blow to their capacity to resist your attacks (most developed, highest production city alot of the time). It's not only how much you benefit but also how hard you hurt their ability to respond in the future. Since a capital spot is almost always given at least 4 special resource tiles (even if you can't see them yet), it is frequently a keeper. Badaboom, you will tend to see people keep them around (in SP).

I don't think it's about early or late.
It's about doable or not.
It's true though that early it's often doable, and later not so often, because you'd have to spend 10 turns walking into enemy territory to reach it.

But if the capital is coastal, I go for it first thing even in the 1900es.

Totally agree. I love to load up some transports with Marines and send them in after some destroyer/battleship bombardment.

Of course the "doable" factor will be the final aspect in the decision given that there are so many variables - location, enemy unique units involved, protective/aggressive traits, diplomacy, wonders, etc. The early vs. later aspect is a general overview in my mind.

Taking a capital serves many roles
1) Usually has the most resources in it
2) Often there best production city
3) Usually near the center of their territory so it can split there territories in half
4) Likely there top culture city and probably has wonders or holy cities in it
5) In multiplayer the loss of a capital is demoralizing to a Human even if they are still doing well without it. Often they'll quit once its lost or at least draw troops from outlying cities. Often a human will simply quit and the computer is much less intelligent during wartime.

Thats not to say its smart taking it at times it can stretch your forces thin and you may have to raze it rather than allow it to fall back into enemy control.

I think an over-looked point (and big one) is that going deeper to take capitals is harder when using a QUICK TURNS instead of the extended timeline. This maximizes movement & UV unit life.

I often use the quicker timeline as these games take forever as it is. I think I'll turn it down a notch to normal next time. Usually things do go much easier that way anyhow for me.

I suppose another way to approach this is if the enemy's capital is deep in enemy territory is to build two stacks of doom. One stack designed purely to take and hold the enemy's capital, and a second stack to push in on his borders (or take out his second most powerful city). Some of this depends on placement of the cities, of course, and how long it'll take you to get to them. Obviously if you're lucky enough to have units with the commando promotion, that's ideal for deep strikes as well.

But anyway, you could take out the capital and then begin wiping out the other AI cities.

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.
I agree. Although I would tend to raze rather than capture unless there is a good reason to keep the city. One of the side benefits is that if you cut a path to the capital, you can use the roads that are now in neutral territory. Of course, later in the game this isn't as likely since culture borders will overlap from other cities but you still have a better chance of finding a quick path for your reinforcements if you knock out some cities along the way.

Also, if you're lucky, you can isolate some resources from the new capital by destroying the trade routes along the way.

Prior to large invasion try convert enermy cities to your religion, it takes longer term planning, but it will give you invaluable info(almost like free spies everywhere) after the invasion starts.
This only works if you own the holy city. If your enemy owns it, he will be able to see your cities which puts you at a disadvantage. That would be one of the cities I would keep in the above scenario. In fact, I sometimes prioritize the holy city above the capital, calling a truce once I have it so that I can plan the next phase of the invasion more competently.

I think an over-looked point (and big one) is that going deeper to take capitals is harder when using a QUICK TURNS instead of the extended timeline. This maximizes movement & UV unit life.

I often use the quicker timeline as these games take forever as it is. I think I'll turn it down a notch to normal next time. Usually things do go much easier that way anyhow for me.

Krikey, no wonder we disagree, if you play on quick, the AI could be two eras ahead of you on tech by the time you move 10 squares to get to the AI capital :lol: :lol: :lol:

On a more serious note, I fully agree with Cabert that it's all about "doability". I like to go for a cavalry beeline and will thus zip into the heart of any empire to strike the capital. There isn't much that can touch cavalry effectively if the AI still has only medieval units.

But regardless of the tech situation, it is often feasible to plan a route to take a capital. Of course if the AI is so far ahead of you on power that you have to spend many turns defending before going on the offensive, it probably won't be feasible. But then you want to be the leader on the power graph if at all possible :lol:

There are many factors we need to consider when planning route of attack. Many non-capital AI cities can give you some sorely needed res, if you are low on health, go for that city which has wheat. Capturing that city will give your empire a +2:health: (with granary) which allows all your cities grow faster.

There is no doubt that sacking enemy capital will deal the biggest blow to that single AI; but at competitive levels, it often will cost your entire army to do so while the other 7 AIs build up their armies. Thats why I almost always stream line the city taking process: concentrate attacking force, take strategic cities, fortify/heal/reinforce, and allow my cultural border to absorb the new land. I can often quickly turn these cities to be useful for my empire. Raze the city if it is useless, at least you get to use the road around it.

During the early era of the game, on higher levels and higher speed(normal), enemy capitals grow cultural defense fast, you most likely have to take non-capital cities(with low cultural defense) first with the few units you have. Capital becomes feasible target only when you have sufficiently weaked the AI and have assembled a good size veteran CR melee and siege.

Thats why I would never generalize or identify a single strategy as the "best" in this game.

Bah, just trade a useless resource like marble or stone once the wonders for those are built. Amazing how foolish the AI can be. I've seen them pay top dollar for these when they were utterly useless.

It always used to bug me how they say +1 hammer when they in fact give +0.