KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Almost certainly no.
The Only disadvantage to losing you capital should be
#1. You lost an important city
#2. You are farther from a conquest victory, someone else is closer
Can you move your capital?
- Thread starter Samus_au
- Start date
Almost certainly no.
The Only disadvantage to losing you capital should be
#1. You lost an important city
#2. You are farther from a conquest victory, someone else is closer
You start off with history and end with game mechanics. Throughout history capitols have been moved during wartime as well, to disallow this would seem arbitrary to me. I don't see what the problem with allowing the capitol to be moved at any time would be. Flavourwise, the enemy is marching on your capitol so you quickly build a palace elsewhere and evacuate your court away. Gameplaywise, this can buy you time but it means you're using your resources running rather than fighting, and that's not sustainable (this can be amplified by making the palace very expensive).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
Protective/Organized
cIV conquest was never "hold all capitals, have X% of world pop and Y%of land area". That one's called Domination. In cIV conquest was merely an early form of domination (when not all land was settled, or you couldn't afford to keep most cities). Now both will be viable victory conditions.
About moving capitals; Portugal moving their capital to Brazil when Napoleon came never meant that Napoleon didn't conquer them. Lisbon was taken, and Napoleon won. IMO, if moving the palace is possible, the capital should still remain the same. Anything else would affect gameplay in a bad way...
Napoleon didn't conquer Brazil, though. If that was a Civ V game and the Portuguese capital had stayed in Lisbon, he would have.
eireksten
Protective/Organized
I still don't feel that would do anything good to gameplay. It would basically mean that we're back to the old conquest victory. Which is a step back, IMO.
Why would anyone NOT get themselves a new capital if this was allowed?
edit: I see now that you might think that you're losing if you lose your capital? I'm pretty sure that's not the case. All that happens is that someone else "owns" it.
Because building Palaces forever is not the way to defend your empire? It's not as though you can just click a button and suddenly your capital moves. In Civ you've got to build a new Palace if you want to move your capital, and that takes time and resources. Resources that would be better used on actually defending yourself rather than running. Yes, it would be similar to the old conquest victory in that you couldn't just make a beeline to your enemy's capital and ignore all their other cities/units, but would that be a bad thing? If done right it could be better than both options.
Um, what? That doesn't make any sense at all. You think that if someone takes your capital, it's still your capital, and now you keep playing without a capital? Where did you get that idea?
Confirmed: Conquest victory is the conquering of all capitals. Hence, if you lose your capital, you lose your capital. You do not have a capital until you take it back.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
If capitals can move in civ 5 given that capitals are important for the conquest victory it would probably be automatic. Like the game has certain criteria for what a capital should be, and if another city surpasses your capital enough in those criteria for a while it will move. That would probably be the only way it couldn't be abused. But you have to not be able to replace it if it's taken so the victory condition would still work.
switchas
Chieftain
Sounds silly to me. I guess it will be more like if you lose capital, you get a new one, just your opponent is closer to conquest victory.
Seventh Child
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 83
I highly doubt it will be easy to simply "Beeline" to an enemy capital. Remember, there is no more stacking. You'll need to penetrate a line of units and other cities.
r_rolo1
King of myself
If they allow even a mild form of RoP rape ( and there are clues that RoP rape will be possible in Civ V ), no line of units or other cities will save the game of being exactly a beeline to the enemy caps. Even worse if they are coastal...
Minor Annoyance
Deity
What the hell is RoP? I don't mean to be rude but back when I didn't know what CE and SE was it was infuriating because the tread I read had no clues to what the acronym was.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Oh, sorry ....
Let me quote myself from other thread, just to save my keyboard...
Shaefer in a interview to PC gamer implied that the players will have to care about the AI units roaming through their territory ( no sure if they will attack you or just passing by ) , so some people are concerned that this behaviour might be back. If that happens and taking capitals is all that matters, the game can resume to zoom to capitals...
Let me quote myself from other thread, just to save my keyboard...
To add, in Civ III units can enter other civs territory without a formal treaty allowing them to ...
Shaefer in a interview to PC gamer implied that the players will have to care about the AI units roaming through their territory ( no sure if they will attack you or just passing by ) , so some people are concerned that this behaviour might be back. If that happens and taking capitals is all that matters, the game can resume to zoom to capitals...
moscaverde
Prince
That was one of the most annoying thing of CIV III, if not the most of all.
I'd really like it to be "take and hold all capitals" for the conquest victory, as long as the AI civ had armies and cities left, it would try to liberate its capital and you could do the same if you lose yours. could lead to "resistance" type tactics.
they have said a few times that if a friendly city state is conquered by an enemy, you will be able to "liberate" it. could work the same with major civ caps
they have said a few times that if a friendly city state is conquered by an enemy, you will be able to "liberate" it. could work the same with major civ caps
Minor Annoyance
Deity
Well that would be annoying. I remember in SMAC where whenever you entered someone else's territory they would ask you to leave and if you refused they declared war, and if they went in to your territory and you asked them to leave, they'd declare war. So you always had to follow the rules, but they never did. It would be annoying to have to constantly position my unit as though someone was moving to attack me, but never did. Although with fewer units it might be less time consuming, but then require more though about where to place them.
If it goes this way there should at least be something where if they are in your territory you can declare war and for all intents and purposes (like diplomacy etc.) it was them that declared war. But that would work both ways and it might be just as bad to go to war just for using a short cut. It would be just like in SMAC again, always having to follow the rules and always letting them get away with it.
White Elk
99 > 1
"Uh Bert, Can you move your Capital please?"
.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
If your Capitol is taken, there has to be some sort of consequence, perhaps corruption will become an issue in your other cities at that time, until you take your Capitol back.
They can't have it where another city auto becomes your new Capitol, since all Capitols need to be gained to win Conquest victory.
They can't have it where another city auto becomes your new Capitol, since all Capitols need to be gained to win Conquest victory.
think about it: Taking capitols will be hard because of the 1 unit per tile and limited number of units because of caps. If you do not totally annihilate an enemy, they will constantly try to retake their capitol. This means, you will need to keep troops there to defend. With the limited number of troops, one is not able to just march to every single enemy civ capitol and hope to win in that manner. Too few units, for too few cities. Unless the enemy civ is defeated instantly upon cap sack, a world-cap sack spree will just not be possible.
-This means in order to effectively eliminate any threats from a civ, to relieve your units of guard duty, one still needs to annihilate them a la cIV style.
you get it?!
-This means in order to effectively eliminate any threats from a civ, to relieve your units of guard duty, one still needs to annihilate them a la cIV style.
you get it?!
Disgustipated
Deity
Taking capitols is not necessarily hard, hence the point of this thread. If your (or the ai's) capitol happens to be close the border, it would be able to be taken if you or they manage to break through the front lines. This would be significantly easier than a capitol further back from the border which would enable forming a secondary line if the main line has been broken through.
So the question is, can you move your capitol (at least during peacetime) if it happens to be close the border. Ideally you wouldn't want this situation. But random maps sometimes put you in this situation, and it cannot be avoided.
So the question is, can you move your capitol (at least during peacetime) if it happens to be close the border. Ideally you wouldn't want this situation. But random maps sometimes put you in this situation, and it cannot be avoided.
