Capital cities

S

Stid

Warlord
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
213
Location
England
i for one would like to see a greater effect on an empire if the capital city is taken such as they automatically surrender and all their cities become yours or just that it cripples that empire quite significantly as there is not much point to capitals on previous games
 
How about some massive unhappiness / desertions, exept under Fundementalism, in which your people become enraged at the infidels and get some bonuses?
 
Well, as I've said in other posts, one of the primary effects that losing your capital should have is that it would act as a 'POTENTIAL' trigger for civil war. This does not mean that CW would be automatic, but it should definitely push things in that direction! An especially dictatorial government, for instance, or one which had a lot of corruption or war weariness, might lose many of its outlyling cities if the capital is lost-or even some of its core cities if things are REALLY bad!
Even if you don't get a civil war, then losing your capital should still cause major harmful effects-such as spikes in War Weariness, corruption and unhappiness!
By the same token, though, units defending your capital city should get a defense bonus!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
How about the civ that takes a capital has access to all the technology the other civ has researched? I don't know why this hasn't beed added until now, but it's obvious that the best technology and top-secrets are kept almost always in the capital, or the capital has knowledge about them.
 
An idea would be to have to recapture your capital or build a new palace in x amount of turns or else you would lose the game. Similar to the regicide option, where your civilization has a king unit that must be protected, your capital should be of critical importance.

Batho
 
what if your capital gets nuked and taken would all bad effects still happen from the lose
 
My idea for effects when the captital is lost is this:Goverment turns to anarchy,all armies are paralyzed,cities cant be controlled anymore,and you get a X% chance for escaping the goverment(you) as a non-combat unit(if you had horses in the capital,with 2 or 3 moves) with capabilty of activating and joining a number of X units it meets,but turning them to conscripts.After X turns all paralyzed units are gone.If the leader gets into a city,he can create a draft goverment and control this city.Meanwhile,other cities,alone or in groups,can turn into indepedent states.After creating a draft goverment non-indepedent state cities will be controlled again by you,
but until you build a palace you can build only conscript units.The other states are like other civs until you build a palace,when the will either join you,agree to join you under conditions(e.x.permanent governor in a city and part of the taxes which go to him-with the ability of breaking the deal and have the risk of revolution or disorder),or remain indepedent until you conquer them(no resistance).
 
but it would be very realistic at least in the modern era
 
I disagree with most of these suggestions. They are too harsh. Thinking back on history, taking a capital while bad rarely led to civil war or even total collapse of the government or loss of the war. I think the worst should be a few turns of anarchy until the government regroups and sets up a new capital.
 
I think it should just lead to greater unhappiness, maybe of a bit of rioting for a while, until a new palace is built.

This could also tie into Civil war -- a generally happy and prosperous nation won't encounter civil war, since they'll go from ecstatic to disappointed. But a nation in civil disarray could go from unhappy to militant, since they see the opportunity for change and justice. This would reflect the rare but real occurance of empires starting to crumble after their capital is sacked.
 
warpstorm said:
I disagree with most of these suggestions. They are too harsh. Thinking back on history, taking a capital while bad rarely led to civil war or even total collapse of the government or loss of the war. I think the worst should be a few turns of anarchy until the government regroups and sets up a new capital.
Click to expand...
Good point.
I do think that, the one that captures it, should get some of the techs from that civ
 
I, for one, never agreed with the absolute 'lose your capital, have civil war' model of civ2, but was very saddened by the real lack of penalty, from losing you capital, in civ3! I agree with WS that anarchy should result from losing your capital-AND that you should have to build your 'palace' (or whatever structure is appropriate for that government type) from scratch in the city designated as your new capital! That said, though, I also do believe that losing your capital should be a FACTOR in determining if any of your cities try and 'break away' from the 'empire'-but normally only if you are having other difficulties at the same time (like low levels of culture/happiness, high levels of crime/corruption, large numbers of foreign nationals etc)!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
you've got to remember tho that if u lose ur captial and then go into anarchy, how can u possibly build another palace? by the next turn or two ur civs gona be long gone so unless anarchy has a lower building penalty then theres no way that could happen without u gettin ur ass kicked.maybe just if some/more cities went into disorder and some of your troops are forced to skip a turn to signify lose of communication and orders from the capital.anyone got any ideas?
 
No civil war due to losing the catipal. If the empire splits in two then it will be even easier to conquer the whole empire for the capital snacher civ. Only, maybe, after the war is over , the capital is gone and after x turns, then there is a chance of nation spliting in two.
That is if it happens in the moder/industrial age. If it happens in the ancient/medieval age then the rebells wouldn't want to break off but become the new rulers of the old empire.

In the First case (indus/modern) the 2 new nations would be at peace with each other automatically
In the second case (Ancie/med) the 2 new nation would be at war with each other automatically
 
i can see the sense in that it would give the civ a bit more breathin space then practically killing them off.these rebels tho any chance of ressurecting a dead civilzation after the war has been over for x amount of turns?
 
I disagree with the civil war and even the anarchy. A person should have to suffer to rebuild a capital though. Until the new capital is built, they should no have any of the benefits of a capital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GeneralZIft
  • Poll
Inuit
Replies
1
Views
198
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
King Phaedron
Evolving Civs and Leaders - Aztec to Mexico, Cherokee to America
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
D
Industrialisation
Replies
0
Views
493
dagriggstar
D
GeneralZIft
Disease [Idea]
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
2K
Evie
Evie
King Phaedron
Linear Cities NEOM aka The Line
Replies
0
Views
246
King Phaedron
King Phaedron
Top Bottom