Capturing Capital and Disrupting the Chain of Command!!

When an Enemy Capital is captured it should not Automatically bounce to another city. The empire should go into at least on turn of anarchy until they can relocate the government. This could take longer for example if you havent got a forbiden palace of other such wonder where the government could escape to.

This sort of "decapitation" makes your capital that much more important than being just the place you started and biggest (usually) city. The idea of a break down in command and confusion following the fall of your seat of government would spread civil disorder across those cities near by and as the government is running for its life perhaps no units could move for a turn until commanders get word from them.

This could be negated by a small wonder such as "forbidden palace" or in modern times...a rear bunker or government shelter in another city. If you dont have these it takes longer to reestablish your government. It would work just like anarcy but once the period is over rather than being offered al ist of government types yuo would be offered a list of cities to relocate to. This could take upto four turns depending on your present government type. i would think that a monarchy with a single ruler would take less time to re group than a democracy where there are many MPs/senators etc.

Also a new spy mission could be to "disrupt the command chain" prior to an invasion or an "assasination". the effects of which would be to halt all troop movements for one turn. ou could do this prior to an invasion or during a sneak attack or to try and halt an attack on you while you re group.

Also a nuclear attack on the capital should have a % chance of achieving the same. perhaps about 50% at first but falling to 10% with a small wonder "nuclear bunker".

Or when you siege the city the govement memers are trapped and the civ goes into disorder until the siege is broken

I like these ideas, not only because they make the game feel more real, but because they add more strategy. I could imagine doing a real vicious move on someone's capitol, or using a spy in the way you suggested (great idea!) and turning the tables in a very interesting way.

I like this idea, or bring back the Civil War concept from CIV2 where capturing a capital results in a large cash penalty to the enemy to rebuild somewhere else or civil war occurs.

This could also allow for the creation of a new small wonder too. It would be like the mobile command system the US has now and would limit/eliminate the effects of a captured/destroyed capital.

Number one, my views on Capital capture and civil war remains the same-that being that it should NOT be automatic, but should be one of a number of potential 'contributing factors', as to whether or not a civ is plunged into civil war!
Second, the spy mission you mentioned actually sounds a lot like the 'Denothor's Folly' card that can be played by Sauron in the upcoming 'War of the Rings' boardgame! Cool idea, I like it a lot!
Finally, I have always felt that the capital should be a vital part of your civ, as it represents not only the commercial/administrative hub of your civ, but also is of symbolic importance in the hearts and minds of the people! Here is an additional idea-the longer you have a single capital, the greater the benefits in reducing corruption and war weariness you accrue! The flip side, however, is that the loss of your capital will be a lot more detrimental too!!
So, in real world terms, the English losing London would be a greater disadvantage than if the Americans lost Washington DC!
Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

This could be big, very BIG especially for Romance of the Three Kingdoms (Ancient Chinese) scenarios where the capital was the centre of command for any kingdom and if it was captured it would almost destroy any resistance.

I like the idea that capturing the capital should have more impact. It should be possible to relocate your capital without building a new palace in war times. Maybe it shifts instantly if war is declared to the city with the rear bunker small wonder. This building should maybe have some other benefits like no WW in this city and act like the civic defense (or have some other bonus on defense like making two defenders you assign as bunker defenders immune to artillery and bombers)

Keep it Simple - one turn of anarchy before an automatic re-location.

It should also be adjusted by government type. Losing a monarch/fascist leader would have a worse effect than losing a president.

But if the leader of a monarchy gets away it has no affect, where as if the capital of a democracy is destroyed and they take out your congress then the government has taken a big hit.

i remember going through this thread before so im not gona talk alot but i agree with everything said

good idea, more realistic, etc. I like it,

BUT for gameplay reasons this isn't really good. We already have the fact that it's too easy to conquer someone if you already have crushed him a bit. There's no way (at the moment) a civilization can make a turn-around in a war IF no external reasons occur (another civ helping, etc.). And that wasn't like this in real life and shouldn't be in for gameplay reasons.
Actually, I'm talking about the Snowball effect. And the "anarchy when Capital falls"-idea enhances this effect. And it's only because of that that I am against this idea.

mfG mitsho

read the sticky:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86713