Capturing enemy capitals

[Northstar5757]

Am I the only one who misses the old rush from capturing enemy capitals?

In Civ3 it's basically useless and these cities are hard to hold on to without them reverting. The capital is automoatically moved and often it can end up in a better place than the original capital. I'd like to see something come about like anarchy for a few turns or the new palace is less effective than the old one until a real palace is built.

I can understand why they have to build a new palace right away (otherwise corruption would make it impossible to build anything) but as the game stands right now capturing an enemy capital has no real adverse effects upon the civilization.

 

[eyrei]

Yeah. A few turns of anarchy would make sense. I liked the possibility of the empire splitting up from civ2 though.

 

[Northstar5757]

Never had the plait in civ2 but did in civ1 was very cool, no idea why it was take out, maybe people were abusing it?

 

[spycatcher34]

I agree with you. Something should be done about this. The crruption in this game is bad enough so without a palace it would be impossible. I especially like your idea of there being a temporary palace and it being less effective than a permanet one.

BTW Does anyone know whether they included the old feature of civ2 where if you captured an enemy capital there was a chance of a revolution? I think the reinclusion of this would be an excellent solution to this problem.

 

[Zouave]

Capturing a capital should have a chance for Civil War especially earlier in the game.

It also should result in some Anarchy for the defeated.

Owing to assimilation problems, I usually have to raze the capital and massacre the entire population, unless most of the enemy country has been already captured.

Corruption is too high - but I can edit that down.

The game has problems! PATCH IT, Sid.

 

[simwiz2]

when a capital is taken there should be no free palace. If the defeated has a forbidden palace they should have the option to make it become capital, if not then they should have no capital until they build another palace

 

[hamster]

simwiz2, that would be too crippling. like Northstar5757 said, if a civ has no palace, corruption would make it impossible to build anything, especially a new palace. there's no chance for recovery. i mean, loosing your capital is often quite possible, given the relentlessness of the AI. I hate to loose my capital and be unable to build a horseman for 1000 years.

 

[Psychlone]

I have no gripe with them getting a new palace elsewhere for free, because as mentioned, game mechanics demand this. What I would like to see, however, is a conquered palace act as something like another forbidden palace, maybe a bit weaker, so as to make rebuilding and assimilating those conquered cities a bit easier. This could be handled in such a way as to only gain this "captured palace" when you take the original palace, once per enemy civ.

 

[Magnus]

Whenever I am at war and their capital is close to my borders, I try to take out the capital as my first act of war, because invariably the new capital moves further away from me and makes it much easier to attack and/or eventually culturally assimilate the remaining nearby cities - plus capital capture generally results in a nice peace offer by the deated civ.

 

[OneInTen]

Actually, it would be quite the opposite of crippling. If you don't have a capital, you get zero corruption, as discovered in the current GOTM (read the GOTM spoiler thread for details of it). So not having a capital would be a good thing for the civ.

 

[Luca Brasi]

The Civil War is only in Civ 1, not Civ 2:

The German empire is swept by Civil War triggered by the fall of their capital! When the dust settles the empire has been split into loyal (German) and rebel (Aztec) factions.

 

[RogueNine]

It happens in Civ 2 also. I can remember going for capitals many times, hoping to see that split.

 

[Luca Brasi]

Hmmm, just found the very same text in the Civ 2 files. Weird, because in all the times I played Civ 2, I never saw it happen.

 

[marcjb]

In the game I am playing now, I am trying a strategy that was suggested elsewhere. Instead of capturing the capital, I have built a couple of forts 2 squares away on opposite sides, and I keep bombarding the roads around the capital. Each fortress has a few infantry, a couple of artillery, and some cavalry. Without the roads, strategic resources can't make it to the enemy capital, and the rest of the enemy civ is stuck building spearmen or conscripting riflemen (only 2 hit points!). Now I can take my time in bringing over troops to mop up the rest of the cities.