Captured Capitals

[ironfang]

What happens when you capture someones capital? What happens when your capital gets captured?

Ironfang

 

[JZ Temple]

I captured Berlin from the German, and all that happened it that their capital designator star moved to another city. I haven't lost my capital yet, but the AI is trying!

 

[Kev]

In my last game, I was battling the Iriquois and every time I took down their capital they had a new one designated. While this was going on, they never had more than 20 gold. Two reasons I can think as to why this might be:

1. Just the way the game plays for the AI. Not sure about the player as I've never lost mine.
2. The Iriquois were in a Despotism and sacrificed population to rush build a palace every time the capital was taken elsewhere.

 

[curmudgeon42]

I have had my capital taken (alright, i'm new, and i got it back later!), and all that happened is my capital became the 2nd city that I built. I later reclaimed it and kicked some English a**. I believe the gold is distributed evenly amonst all the cities, because when my capital was taken I didn't lose an exhorbinant amout.

 

[Le Petit Prince]

I took london...nothing happened...not like in civ2 ...in civ 2 it was catastrophic

 

[Poochface]

Well I took the Greek's capital and I think it severely affected their Civ because they've been playing catch-up for the rest of the game. I think it has more to do with the placement of their cities though because beforehand, their capital was literally the heart of their nation and all the roads and city borders connected through the capital. When I took their capital, their cities all became isolated from each other, so maybe that's why they've been sucking for the rest of the game.

 

[Dearmad]

It doesn't do much in this game does it?

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by Poochface
Well I took the Greek's capital and I think it severely affected their Civ because they've been playing catch-up for the rest of the game. I think it has more to do with the placement of their cities though because beforehand, their capital was literally the heart of their nation and all the roads and city borders connected through the capital. When I took their capital, their cities all became isolated from each other, so maybe that's why they've been sucking for the rest of the game.

I think that your analysis is right on, here.

So much in the game is dependent upon the capital city, that I guess it became an actual necessity for each civilization to have one. Resources and luxuries all measure effectiveness based upon its connection to the capital. I assume that with the destruction of a capital city, a new one NEEDS to be designated in order for the computer to be able to designate items that are usable by that civ.

Did that make ANY sense?

In a similar way, embassies will only work if you are able to click on the little "star" next to the capital city's name - so it would be necessary to have a capital designated. My only question is if a new palace is built in the newly designated capital for free?

What probably happened in your case, Poochface (nice name ) is that the new capital was not connected to all of the other British cities. Those not connected undoubtedly suffered a loss of resources and luxuries and just could not function. The capital was also likely rebuilt somewhere that was not central, and the more outlying cities saw more corruption and could not produce.

 

[haozertree]

Shortly after I captured Paris and Moscow both cities revolted back their old masters within about 20 turns since I was so busy sieging other cities and forgot to hurry temples.

Also both times I got my leaders were from capturing capitals. I wonder if capitals have slightly different stats than normal cities.

 

[miradus]

Originally posted by curmudgeon42
I believe the gold is distributed evenly amonst all the cities, because when my capital was taken I didn't lose an exhorbinant amout.

I recently had the 'barbarian uprising' near a newly created city of 1 population that hadn't built a spearmen. I was still in despotism so there wasn't any way to rush build so I just had to take it while 30 horsemen stormed in. Each one of them tried to take 40 gold, all the way down to bankrupting me. I wouldn't have thought there was THAT much gold in the whole village, but they certainly found it.

 

[Daaraa]

I kept beating on both the Russians and the French (not at the same time ) and they wouldn't talk to me diplomatically until I took thier capital, then they traded cities for peace.
Then I took London and nothing major happened. The English were still biligerant.
So I'm not sure I affected them at all.
I've never lost my own capital.

 

[Borealis]

I concur. Taking a major city in the heart of someone's territory, or a choke-point cuts off trade routes, which kills their economy and other important allocations.

I was attempting to play a culture/diplomatic/space-race game last, and finally ended up using that strategy to get the Germans to sue for peace. Afterwards, they never recovered.

Also, as far as culture goes, if you take an older/larger city with more improvements, although you don't directly benefit from their age, the AI loses that, which makes it easier to negotiate with them. Same difference.

 

[LKendter]

I recently had the 'barbarian uprising' near a newly created city of 1 population that hadn't built a spearmen.

The computer will do all types of things to screw settlers. My first game I was moving one, and barbarians slaughtered it.

Very important new rule - Build a defender, then settler. If not, the computer will nail you. However, I must agree, you really got zapped. :rocket3:

 

[ironfang]

I have finally captured another civs capital and I have to concur that it has done very little to affect them (aside from removing a major city = source of income, science, and trade).

However, this is probably due to my military strategy. How is that you ask? Simple.

When I attack a capital, I make sure that my flanks are secure. So, before I actually attempt a capital, I will take out surrounding cities first, garrison my forces, and then once my flanks are secure, I take the capital (at least thats how I did it this time, and thats how I am going to take the next one).

When I finished there were no "scattered" cities to be affected. I had counquered all the cities to the west and north of the capital. When they relocated the capital to the east, it was admidst all their remaining cities, thus it was no very important.

However, I think "giving" a civilization a "Free" capital once their main capital is taken is a crock of crap. A capital not just leadership. It is an established structure full of bearocratic buildings, legal libraries, etc.. It should have to be "rebuilt" and the rest of the nation should be stricken with corruption and unrest until they rebuild a capital. This would put a nice "spin" on warfare, and at least make the AI or other players be more willing to negotiate for their capital back.

ironfang

 

[Dmitry]

I think it all depends on what time period you are in. I took another civ (I think Egyptians) capital while still in the early BC - so they just moved the capital - but once I got much latter in the game in the Industial age that where taking the capital totaly finished off English. They were #1 and my civ was #3 - after the "Oil Incident" we switched places. My civ became #1 and they droped to #3.

 

[Sarcastro]

Instead of capturing or razing an enemy's capital, could you not "take it hostage," and do them far more damage?

By this I mean: Destroy all of the roads around it, cutting it off, and then keep plenty of units on hand to capture workers sent in to fix them and to keep them from retaking the ground. Do you think that the AI would be smart enough to build a new palace in a different location, or would its capital be forever behind your siege wall? You wouldn't have to worry about losing the captured city to culture, and a new capital wouldn't automatically be generated.

Heck, if sufficiently defended, you could have your workers build a ring of 8 fortresses around the city and put a couple defenders + artillery in each, and they'd have a hell of a time ever getting it back.

Perhaps someone could answer: does level of corruption in outlying cities depend entirely on sheer physical distance from the capital, or do roads matter too? In other words, does cutting a capital off completely from the rest of its empire increase corruption and waste levels elsewhere? If so, then this could potentially be an interesting tactic.

 

[ironfang]

Good idea Sarcasto... if it were real life I would agree, but it just doesnt work that way in Civ3. If you surround an enemies capital, you are going to be harrassed EVERY round until all your units are dead. And because the enemy still would own the area around it, his units will move with the benefits of roads, and your will be affected as if no roads exist.

Also, corruption is sheer distance based. However, a forbidden palace can fix this problem temporarily.

ironfang

 

[Sam_Catchem]

I think taking the capitol is major nasty still...just not as nasty as in civ2. When they lose their original capitol they lose out on the benfits of the palace. They have to make up for it. Sure there capitol moves to another city but I do not think they get the same advantages (culture..yada,yada) until they build a new one. That could take a ton of time early in the game. They have to rush to build a new one and not military units. If you have over extended yourself militarily, they will always (or it would seem) negotiate a quick peace. Getting you all sorts of goodies in the process..even cities.

My question is, does the Palace get an age bonus for culture? If so..then it is a major crushing blow even if they do build a new palace. Does anybody know if age is a factor in the palace?

 

[Zannhart]

aaaaa

 

[ironfang]

The new city they choose for the capital does not have to be stricken with corruption, just the rest of the nation. THUS they would have to choose a city which could produce a new capital quickly, and not just the next closest city to the center of their nation (which has happened AGAIN with the Persians).

If I had to put penalties for a sacked capital;
- Anarchy in all cities (except for newly chosen capital) for a limited time.
- Some cities would revolt/join other cultures.
- Corruption at 50% of production until capital is produced.

ironfang