Capital cities

[Kosez]

You are all talking about penalties for civ that loses its capital. I think there should not be any penalties, at least not very serious though. Penalties woul weaken defending civ in a way that eventually it could not defend itself anymore.
Instead I suggest bonuses for civ that conquers its enemy`s capital. Like increased happines, or morale of the units, or international reputation,...
What do you think?

 

[Commander Bello]

I agree with Kosez upon the fact that penalties for a lost capital doesn't make sense.

Under the assumption that your empire holds 20 cities, one may assume that prior to your capital already 3 to 4 other cities have been lost. This means, you have lost 20 to 25 per cent of your economic capacity.

Then you loose your capital.

And on top of it there shall be penalties like split nation, rounds of anarchy and so on?

The only penalty which would make sense, would be a drop in the overall score. Anything else just doesn't make any sense. Or would you vote for a penalty for lost units? Maybe one additional unit being erased? ...

 

[Lockesdonkey]

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.

The point would be that you don't have to pay alot to make your "shadow capital" your real capital. A small reward for preparation.

 

[awcabot]

All the suggestions so far do not include the possibility that a Forbidden City wonder might have already been built by the losing Civ. Therefore, a Civ looses it's capitol, the new capitol moves to the city that holds the Forbidden City.

However if both have been lost, yes, the Civ should may split up (but no anarchy) according to government centralization (Democracy with many courthouses and Nationalism will be less likely to split up than Monarchy with no courthouses), geography (far away islands will become independent), ethnicity or religion. Cities the losing Civ may have captured from other Civs may return to their previous owner.

However to keep the losing Civ from disappearing and being gobbled up by larger, more succesfull Civs, the following should also happen:

1. All attacking AI Civs will all form a Peace Treaty with the resulting smaller Civs, thereby giving a few turns to the loser to recuperate their strength.
2. The resulting losing Civs (if any) will offer to the human aggresor generous terms of surrender, including exclusive ROP, vassallage (however this may be defined) of one resulting Civ. Benefits to the human aggressor will be dealing with small Civs on friendly turns. The fight was between two governments, of which one does not exist anymore and has been replaced with smaller new ones, with no memory of previous relations.
3. The resulting split Civs (if any) may after a few turns spontaneously join if they are doing comparitevely well or threatened by a common enemy.

I believe this will more closely resemble what may happen in real life. The previous examples offered (British capturing Washington or Napoleaon capturing Moscow) are not good examples, since both were for short periods of time and both had alternative main cities which could serve for a government in exile (Philadelphia/New York or St. Petersburg). Think of how many nations had their backs broken with the loss of their capitol: France 1940, Nazi Germany 1945, Papal States 1870, China 1905 (?), Carthage (sometime BC), Rome (476), Persia (sometime BC), Incas, Aztecs...

NB:
Capitol: seat of national government.
Capital: assets available for use in the production of further assets.

 

[rhialto]

Actually, capital can have either meaning.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Agreeing with Warpstorm.

There should be a time limit to an enemy civ being able to keep troops within your capital, i.e. when (IF) peace is declared the capital should be returned to the former original owners (this could be part of the diplomacy features)- when losing it anarchy should spread as your government flees elsewhere your "green" conscripts should leave the war at this point gradualy, say 20% per turn at random selection- when conquered a significant part of your civ's taxes/kept resources should be plundered by the enemy invader, direclty as booty. Recovering ones' capital before the end of a war/cease fire would not return those stolen goods, yet give the recuperating civ an extra bonus as volunteers join their ranks...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey, I am all for having the loss of your capital leading to a DROP in your current war weariness-as the wounded national pride of your people seeks urgent redress. However, in terms of the ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY of your civ, that should DEFINITELY drop if you lose your capital-and have no means of re-establishing the seat of government elsewhere.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Going along with the terrible penalties for losing tha capital, I think alot of them are OK If merely occupying all a civ's cities doesn't eliminate it... so a 'capital penalty' may speed up your war loss, but a 'war loss' isn't final (Poland/France, etc.)

I do agree that a Shadow Capital/government-in-exile should be doable..but losing your current permanent Capital should hurt two things
1. Organizational capacity (corruption increase perhaps some military penalties)
2. National cohesion (increased 'Rebel' Activity, reduced cultural growth)

(also a peace treaty should not necessarily mean return of the capital (ie France+Germany, 1940))

Sub-level capitals (governments-in-Exile, Shadow Capitals, etc.) should reduce the penalties but not eliminate them.

You should be able to reestablish government elsewhere, but it should be a multi-step process (restoring the bureaucracy)

 

[Princeps]

but it would be very realistic at least in the modern era

Oh, If U.S. would suddenly lose control of Washington, they would fall in to a anarchy...

 

[Kosez]

Oh, If U.S. would suddenly lose control of Washington, they would fall in to a anarchy...

No they wouldn`t. They would keep on fighting. Losing Washington would make Americans terribly angry. Losing their capital makes every nation angry, so they fight even more desperately. In war, no nation suffers anarchy, instead they unify themselves, they all work for the same cause.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Such always depends on the circumstances and ranges from blind anger, over resiliance and desesperation, down to straight apathy.

 

[Hyronymus]

Losing your capital should result in more corruption until you resettled your Palace somewhere else. On the other hand it might boost city defense in your remaining cities, because people are very upset with the loss.

Capturing a capital should decrease resistance in already conquered cities of the same Civ who's capital you captured. Maybe each captured capital should work as a Forbidden Palace for the rest of it's 'life'.

 

[Princeps]

No they wouldn`t. They would keep on fighting. Losing Washington would make Americans terribly angry. Losing their capital makes every nation angry, so they fight even more desperately. In war, no nation suffers anarchy, instead they unify themselves, they all work for the same cause.

Thats my point.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

every time i read in a history book that a nation got their capital captured they had to have peace with loss on their side (maybe handing over a province or two) EX:

During the Mexican War the US successfully captured Mexico City which caused Mexico to sue for peace. they lost a lot of their southwestern US territory for peace

 

[dh_epic]

Like I've said in other threads, the importance is the model should be organic. It shouldn't be:

"Capture Capital City --> Anarchy"
"Capture Capital City --> Civil War"
"Capture Capital City --> Forced Peace"
"Capture Capital City --> National Mosh Pit"

But something more like this:

"Capture Capital City x Current Mood x Nationalist Sentiment --> New Mood"

Where Nationalist sentiment is how much your people love your country. They can be happy and be relatively apathetic to the country, or be unhappy but have relative love for your country.

And the "New Mood" combines with other factors to determine if Civil War or Anarchy occurs. And it should ultimately be the player's choice to go with peace, if and when they get sick and tired of dealing with their unhappy people (if they become unhappy).

 

[Commander Bello]

every time i read in a history book that a nation got their capital captured they had to have peace with loss on their side (maybe handing over a province or two) EX:

During the Mexican War the US successfully captured Mexico City which caused Mexico to sue for peace. they lost a lot of their southwestern US territory for peace

But this is due to the fact that in the course of taking the capital, the defender's main forces have been killed or captured.
There is no law of nature that makes a nation crumble and crush if a certain city is taken by enemy forces.

About all this talking about penalties for a loss of your capital:

In terms of game play: There is no point in adding penalties if the capital of your nation has been taken. If there were such penalties, the game would just be over, as you couldn't recover anymore.

I think, that most players just would like to have those penalties inflicted upon their opponents but not on themselves

This is very much like all this talking about "vassal states". Fine, if some AI players become vassals of your little empire. The same concept would make the human player immediatly start a new game.

But there is no point in having concepts within the game, which are already doomed only to work for the AI, since the human player would never accept to suffer from them.
So, just a bad idea. Sorry.

 

[Kosez]

But there is no point in having concepts within the game, which are already doomed only to work for the AI, since the human player would never accept to suffer from them.
So, just a bad idea. Sorry.

Exactly. Penalties for losing a cap only means easier work for civ that`s alredy wining.

 

[Hyronymus]

Exactly. Penalties for losing a cap only means easier work for civ that`s alredy wining.

Face it: if the US looses Washington the Americans surely get angry and fight harder BUT they did loose the place that organises everything. I'm not sure if that loss would mean nothing in compare to the troops fighting harder. Besides, the Americans get angry -> civil disorder/war wearines?!

NOTE: I only used the US since it was subject of examples before.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Simple, as the Capital is usually the cultural and governmental centre of a nation, then losing said capital SHOULD effect these elements of a nations strength. However, the peoples war weariness-if any-would drop in such a circumstance, and what you could get away with in hitting the enemy would be MUCH broader. If anything, a nation which loses its capital MIGHT even DESIRE the war-depending on other circumstances.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is very much like all this talking about "vassal states". Fine, if some AI players become vassals of your little empire. The same concept would make the human player immediatly start a new game.

But there is no point in having concepts within the game, which are already doomed only to work for the AI, since the human player would never accept to suffer from them.

That only works for penalties that are permanent... or that doom you to lose the game... after all, why not restart the game when you find out in the first turn that you don't have two cattle in your city spot...after all that's a penalty...and something random to boot.

Vassal States, and Surrender, etc. should Only be in if they offer the Player some benefit... Now if you are in a pretty bad position...so bad that you will Never recover.. then you can play for points (this might spur a Union of a smaller power with a weaker one ie Vermont with New York+Virginia) so that the 'Vermont Civ' will always get less points than New York, but might get more than other civs that Didn't join.
Also you Can play to win...in two ways

1. By being the biggest to Fully unify with a Civ that will win in points (if you have the biggest fraction of the biggest chunk of points you will probably win)

2. By not Fully unifying and breaking off later when times are good (Vassal States)


All penalties are good IF
1. You can recover from them
or
2. They are an acceptable cost of a strategy that still lets you win or do well


Also one point on the example, what happened to the US would depend on When it lost Washington.
2000.. probably ok (although that would probably need a Nuclear War)
1920.. probably ok (rallying but..some organizational capacity depending on how well the government transferred)
1870.. possibly Civil War
1850.. probably Civil War
It would also depend on to who the US lost its Capital to, if some states are willing to make peace with with the conquerors then they might easily break off