Capital cities

[Stid]

and what real benefits are there to a capital? nothing thats gona make it stand proudly above the rest of ur empire.maybe we need to find a better purose for the captial as well as a bigger disadvantage for losing it lol

 

[BkGreatWarnut]

I disagree with the civil war and even the anarchy. I feel that a person should just have to rebuild their capital. Until the capital is rebuilt, the civ should lose all the benefits of a capital.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, first of all, I think you misunderstood me Stid! Then again, I wasn't entirely clear myself!
First, the anarchy lasts until you 'designate' your new captial! This would take around 2 turns! The turn after you lose your capital you suffer full anarchy, and can designate your new capital! Then, at the end of the second turn after losing your old capital, your new capital goes into effect! After this, you can begin to rebuild your 'Seat of Government'-be it a palace or parliament or congress etc etc!
As for what benefits a capital/'seat of government' should have! Well certainly economic (like internal and external trade) and corruption-reducing benefits would be good! Reduced war weariness would also be a positive effect of your capital/'seat of government'! I see this as being a 'two-tiered' effect, where simply having your 'Capital' allows these effects (and prevents anarchy), but your seat of government improves the effectiveness of your capital! This way, it might be possible to lose your 'seat of government' (via bombardment/natural disasters, for instance), whilst still retaining your CAPITAL!!!
Anyway, just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Anyway, just a thought!!

 

[EddyG17]

Talking about rebuilding, If a city is lost and then recaptured rebuilding the improvemnts that were already in the city should be easier(cost less shields) to be build again. If the city it is not recaptured then it would not be as cheap to rebuild the stuff.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Look at history for the answer - what happened when Napoleon took Moscow? When the British took Washington?

The effects of capturing the capital should be based upon the civ's centralization. The more centralized a country is, the more of an effect it has. Which is why capturing a capital these days would mean more than doing so 1000 years ago.

 

[Lewsir]

Don't forget that with C3C you can at least play the regicide option, which I find interesting - I end up making a special effort at least once a game to to hunt down a capital and wipe the enemy off the map. Of course would be fairly dissatisfying to have it happen to me - but it does force me to pay particular attention to protecting my capital. I also enjoy sending the king out on early, risky reconaissance missions since he has 2 moves/turn. But I digress...

 

[Babbler]

Look at history for the answer - what happened when Napoleon took Moscow? When the British took Washington?

The effects of capturing the capital should be based upon the civ's centralization. The more centralized a country is, the more of an effect it has. Which is why capturing a capital these days would mean more than doing so 1000 years ago.

That a good idea! How about the effects of capital capture depends on the gov't type. For example, Communist and Facist gov'ts get drafted units without unhappyness, in fact the citizens are happy.

 

[phorvath2110]

Here's my idea on the whole capital thing:

If someone captures your capital a leader should appear who has to make it to a nearby city to restore order. Once the leader appears, who is essentially a "government in exile". The leader has to get to a nearby city and then he can "rush build" the palace, thereby re-establishing the capital city. Until the leader does this you have anarchy. If your leader dies before building a capital, your civilization bites the dust.

Oh, and you would also get one or two guerillas or drafted units from your city to help accompany your government to safety depending on the city size.

 

[Stid]

lol im glad its the designer who has to make it work for civ4 and not me bt i do like phorvath's idea and there are some gd ones above as well

 

[phorvath2110]

Here's my idea on the whole capital thing:

If someone captures your capital a leader should appear who has to make it to a nearby city to restore order. Once the leader appears, who is essentially a "government in exile". The leader has to get to a nearby city and then he can "rush build" the palace, thereby re-establishing the capital city. Until the leader does this you have anarchy. If your leader dies before building a capital, your civilization bites the dust.

Oh, and you would also get one or two guerillas or drafted units from your city to help accompany your government to safety depending on the city size.

I'd also like to add that in my suggestion you could still have a civil war depending on size of empire, etc...

 

[EddyG17]

A civil war to happen to a civ which just lost its capital would be extremly harsh on them. First of all, now you and the new civ have to beg for peace to the attacking civ. This Attacking civ will be less inclined to accept either beg for peace because of the fact that both of you are now half strong you were a turn ago. Next you have to get your empire back or sue for peace with the new civ, you could regain your cities or lose the game rigth there.

 

[bob rulz]

Here are my thoughts.

First, your empire, instead of having corruption for each city, it should have a nationwide corruption system based partly on you're treasury (whether it's growing or shrinking), the size of your empire, the government you're in, the difficulty level, and possibly a few other factors.

So, when your capital is captured, it takes into account a number of factors:

1-The overall corruption of your empire (the most important thing)
2-The population of your capital city and empire (higher is worse)
3-The cultural level and/or world ranking compared to everyone else (lower is worse)
4-Your military strength
5-Your government (undecided on what should be worse or better)

Here are some of things that could happen (from best to worst). A seed number will be rolled to see whether your leader will be rescued or not.

1-There is a chance that your leader will be rescued from his palace by collaborators, based on the factors above and then a final, random seed number to determine the ultimate outcome. In this case, you get to choose what city will be your new capital. Note that this may happen even if your civilization is in revolt, but it will also increase the likelihood that your empire will return to order. This option is not possible in a worst-case scenario (at bottom).

2-Your civilization experiences an increase in corruption but no disorder.

3-Units may be disbanded and may have decreased morale temperorarily, corruption will increase sharply, and cities may be thrown into a temporary revolt.

4-Cities may fall into civil disorder, more units will be disbanded, corruption will be rampant. Militant groups may constantly switch around your capital, although your government type will remain the same.

5-1 or 2 turns of Anarchy followed by a random generation of a new government after rebellious groups take control. Uncontrollabel corruption and excessive disbanding and morale decreases of units. Your palace is destroyed and you have no capital. Not possible on lowest levels, no matter how bad your corruption is.

 

[dh_epic]

6 - civil war

... what?

I think the unit penalties are the only thing I might disagree with, BTW. And I might throw in some happiness penalties, or even cash penalties.

 

[Paradigne]

Shouldn't all standing treaties/trade agreements be broken? I'm pretty sure this happened during anarchy in civ 2 (or was it one).

 

[bob rulz]

I think Civil War is a bit too harsh. And the happiness penalties practically apply to civil disorder.

Also, maybe I should replace losing military units with losing money.

 

[searcheagle]

The provincial system could make the national capital more interesting. If there is a lot of unification, these province would work to together. They could hold a meeting of Governors to hold the government together until a new capital is created or the old one is recaptured. If the government is loose (i.e. feudalism) the provinces may split or realigned into new civs.

 

[douche_bag]

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 like the anarchy idea.it would be just like changing governments.

 

[Portuguese]

You are right. Something significant should occur when you capture a capital city, I am not sure about the empire surrending to you.

Not sure what I would suggest but I will think about it.

Or a empire split like in CIV1, when 1 became 2 or 3 civs...

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Perhaps there could also be a small wonder, the "Shadow Capital" which automatically becomes your capital in the event of the capture/destruction of your old one, to represent some of the measures taken by modern governments to prevent this situation from occurring.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Lockesdonkey, perhaps they should do it the way it used to be in Civ2-i.e., that if your capital was captured, you would be offered the chance to move your 'seat of government' to another city-but only for a substantive up-front payment.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.