Can you move your capital?

[Samus_au]

So after reading in various sources that to win a conquest victory you now only need to capture an opponents capital I've been wondering if you will still be able to move your capital around?

If you still can this could provide a cheap way of dodging a conquest loss, just keep shuffling the capital around from city to city. Sure this probably wont work for a long time, but it could buy enough time for a space race or culture victory to work (assuming these are still present at least).

If you can't move your capital then what will happen to the effects on distance to capital, such as corruption etc? Will we get more ways of combating this, or will the capital just have less importance?

 

[eireksten]

You can't do it in Civilization Revolution, where the conquest victory works the same way. I'm guessing it'll be the same in Civ 5.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'm hoping that you can still move it. It'll become more logical to have this option now (I usually don't bother unless it's necessary, but, if it's not defendable, i'd like to).

 

[SeptimusOctopus]

I haven't played CivRev, so what happens if you lose your capitol? Is that game over for you?

 

[Hypernova]

Maybe it will just take longer to move your capital?

 

[Samus_au]

You can't do it in Civilization Revolution, where the conquest victory works the same way. I'm guessing it'll be the same in Civ 5.

True, all thought if I remember correctly Civ Rev didn't have any penalties for distance from capital like Civ 4 does.

Maybe it will just take longer to move your capital?

Or it could only be done during peace?

 

[Chimera1804]

Or it could only be done during peace?

Dang I was going to suggest that...

but yeah, that would make sense. Throughout history capitols have been moved; it would make no sense for you not to be able to do so in Civ V. During war-time, however, I doubt it could be moved. Which would again be logical. If peace-time movability were implemented then you could still move it without seriously ticking off an opponent in MP

 

[eireksten]

@SeptimusOctopus:

No, you don't. You just continue playing without one (capitals really have no other specific function in CivRev). Capture it back to avoid having the conqueror win by conquest

True, all thought if I remember correctly Civ Rev didn't have any penalties for distance from capital like Civ 4 does.

And as you don't know how this works in Civ5, that's not something to worry too much about now either, is it? If capitals are important (for other reasons than conquest victory) in Civ5, I'm sure they've put a lot of effort in coming up with a natural solution.

edit: Though I guess distance from capital maintenance is gone since you should be able to play on after losing your capital...

 

[Samus_au]

And as you don't know how this works in Civ5, that's not something to worry too much about now either, is it? If capitals are important (for other reasons than conquest victory) in Civ5, I'm sure they've put a lot of effort in coming up with a natural solution.

edit: Though I guess distance from capital maintenance is gone since you should be able to play on after losing your capital...

I have no doubt however they decided to make it happen will be a good solution. As you say, we still don't know enough to really tell one way or the other. But its not fall and I'm at work so rampant speculate is in order

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I see two ways of dealing with this

1. You can move the capital in a long, restricted process
2. Distance to Capital doesn't matter anymore.

 

[bonafide11]

I've wasted a ridiculous amount of my life playing Civ IV, and I never ever once bothered moving my capital, so I don't think it'll be a big factor.

 

[Seventh Child]

I've moved my capital a few times. But I don't think I'll miss it.

Still, if I lose my capital to a warmonger, it's going to be odd having a civilization with no capital.

I also come from New Zealand, which is an example of a capital moving in order to "cut down maintenance costs" (It was moved to a more central location to exert more power over the south island)

With the removal of stacks, it should prove fairly difficult to "Assassinate" capitals as well.

 

[the343danny]

It will be sad to see distance penalty go away though.

However, I think it will still be a big factor, just that in order to keep the marker that this city was once a capital, the capital you conquer will still have a modified palace, and you will still keep your old capital, and the ones who lost the capital can still build a palace.

 

[Legionarius]

I hope you can. There have been multiple instances in history when a nation moved their capital when there was a risk.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I hope there still is a 'complete' conquest victory if you want. Only capitals seems like cheating.

 

[grant2004]

I hope you can still move your capitals. I've had to do that a few times in games where I start on a smallish island. In Civ IV the colony maintenance bonuses can really kill you.

I hope the way the conquest victory works is that when you capture an enemy capital it toggles a flag that you've captured the capital of one of your opponents. If they build a new capital after you've captured it it doesn't affect your conquest victory, but if they recapture their old capital then your flag is toggled off. Once all of these conquest flags are toggled on you win.

This would make more sense than being left without a capital for potentially thousands of years, or having to capture all of the worlds capitals nearly simultaneously.

 

[Quaczar]

my guess is that it might merge the conquest victory conditions from civ rev and cIV. so it would be: hold all capitals, have X% of world pop and Y%of land area

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I hope you can still move your capitals. I've had to do that a few times in games where I start on a smallish island. In Civ IV the colony maintenance bonuses can really kill you.

I hope the way the conquest victory works is that when you capture an enemy capital it toggles a flag that you've captured the capital of one of your opponents. If they build a new capital after you've captured it it doesn't affect your conquest victory, but if they recapture their old capital then your flag is toggled off. Once all of these conquest flags are toggled on you win.

This would make more sense than being left without a capital for potentially thousands of years, or having to capture all of the worlds capitals nearly simultaneously.

Chances are that you don't have to worry about massive maintenence costs when you lose your capital.

In Civ 4 it was impossible to "lose" your capital, you Always have one, so the game was designed around that.

In Civ 5 it will be possible to lose your capital... The maintenance system will be balanced from that.


Ways I can see concept being adapted

there are "Governor" buildings that act as palaces for Maintenance purposes but not Conquest Victory purposes

Other ideas:
Distance maintenance....
is based on the Average distance between this city and all your other cities

Overseas maintenance...
is Not charged on the island/continent that has the greatest number of your cities


As for Conquest Victory... Conquest should just be Hold the Capitals
Domination should be X% of Territory

That makes them separate, as they should be

 

[Infantry#14]

I'm hoping that when you capture an ai's capital, all ai's cities descend into chaos and become city states. However you are still at war with all those city states. When the human loses the capital, the human can only retain one of his remaining cities and must reunify their original cities.

 

[Gliese 581]

I can see how prebuilding your capital in an expansion city in anticipation or as a response to an attack could be an effective strategy in some cases.
It would also be very lame.