Conquest Victory changed

[Chief of Staff]

It has brought to my attention that conquest victory will now be changed so that you only need to capture the capital cities in order to win them. Now, I am objecting to this change because I personally enjoy war of attrition, basically a prolonged war where strategy and tactics is so much required at capturing or destroying all enemy cities. I would personally like to see that they have option for old-fashioned conquest victory in addition to this radically changed conquest victory. I'm concerned that lack of option for old-fashioned conquest victory in addition to new kind of conquest victory will shorten the "war game" within Civilization V.

I've always liked to do like military tactics and strategy, with fronts along a line between enemy and my troops on lands, pushing one way or another as one's military units are destroyed or has arrived to reinforce their respective units. I like to see extensive naval fleets battling for control of the seas and blockading enemy ports (much like the glorious days of the Royal Navy during Napoleonic Wars controlling the seas and blockading French ports or later United States Navy during Second World War projecting power into distant western Pacific). I like to see air forces battling for control of the skies. And all together in land-sea-air cooperation against enemies.

But this change to conquest victory requiring capturing enemy capitals only without option for old-style conquest victory condition (where you have to capture all enemy cities) threaten to shorten the "war games" where one would simply skip most of enemy cities for aims of capturing enemy capital.

 

[Ahriman]

Now, I am objecting to this change because I personally enjoy war of attrition, basically a prolonged war where strategy and tactics is so much required at capturing or destroying all enemy cities.

Then just turn conquest victory off. Ta da!

Most people find the idea of capturing all enemy cities incredibly dull, because they have "won" the game (in the sense of being the most powerful player by far, with no chance of anyone else stopping them) long before then, and the rest of the game is a tedious mop-up operation.

 

[thungrim]

"Strategy and tactics" doesn't get you into a war of attrition. I'd say wars of attrition are what's left over when all other strategy and tactics have gone through the window.

As for me, I will placate my inner warlord by assaulting the capitals last.

 

[morss_4]

What difference does it make? They always let you keep playing after the game is "over." If you really want to take every last city, no one is going to stop you.

 

[UWHabs]

It also makes for different tactics.

The biggest thing to consider is how to deal with a civ once you capture their capital. Obviously it doesn't make sense to just absorb them, but that also means you will be able to have capital-less empires.

 

[Thormodr]

I'm sure they'll be able to mod it back to the old way if it proves unpopular.

 

[Woodreaux]

This is a good point. Napoleon occupied Moscow, yet the Russian Empire did not fold.

EDIT: my bad, St. Petersburg was the capital. Moscow was just a very important city.

 

[duckstab]

It's also possible that with the new combat changes it won't be as viable to capture all the rival's cities. I'm all for leaving it in as an option, but I'm just saying it might not be as fun as it is in Civ IV.

 

[_hero_]

Don't assume this will greatly shorten war victories. With units no longer instantly dying in combat and cities having HP and defensive abilities I assume it will be quite hard to take a capital without first crushing the enemy on the "battlefield." Additionally just because you only have to take the capitals doesn't mean it won't be advantageous to take most or all of the cities. It will be quite hard to hold an isolated capital that you captured while your troops are off fighting another nation if you don't have other nearby cities to help pump troops out.

 

[Woodreaux]

Now I'm confused. In Civ V, is there a distinction between Conquest and Domination victories? If the distinction still exists, then are we to assume that the only change this brings about is at the end game, as in when you sack the first rival's capital, his empire doesn't immediately disappear?

 

[Ultimate_Waffle]

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the domination victory in Civilization 5, not conquest.

 

[Woodreaux]

Okay, so in Civ V there's just one military victory route: Conquest? If that's the case, what happens to the remaining cities of a civilization when you seize the capital? Do you get those right away along with the capital?

 

[Hypernova]

Don't assume this will greatly shorten war victories. With units no longer instantly dying in combat and cities having HP and defensive abilities I assume it will be quite hard to take a capital without first crushing the enemy on the "battlefield."

Exactly, this is the first thing I thought when reading this concern. The combat system seems geared up to make to make assassinating a capital very difficult, and then there's holding it. I think that in almost all circumstances the only way to capture the capital will be to largely beat the enemy anyway, including capturing many of their cities. This could be a nice relief from the mop up operation of fully conquering an already clearly beaten enemy.

 

[champinoman]

Okay, so in Civ V there's just one military victory route: Conquest? If that's the case, what happens to the remaining cities of a civilization when you seize the capital? Do you get those right away along with the capital?

The civilization keeps playing to try and take back their capital using the other cities they have.

EDIT: Hypernova beat me to it with a good explanation. Holding it is not going to be easy if you haven't 'beaten' the opponent yet.

 

[obscurereferenc]

This is something that was introduced in CivRev. To clear up some confusion it should be pointed out that you don't win until you have captured ALL enemy capitals at once (and then held on to them all for a turn). If your capital city gets captured by an enemy your Civ still exists and you can still take the city back, just as before.

This works really well actually. Let's face it, if you're powerful enough to take and hold every enemy capital there's no way you'll lose. Better to just call it a win and start a new game. One change I would make would be to make the period of time when you're holding on to all the capitals slightly longer and more difficult (for example all of these civs should declare war on you and temporarily focus their objectives on taking back their capital, even if you've made peace with them. It would be one last challenge before you win).

 

[tom2050]

In all reality, you will probably have to, and want to conquer other enemy cities before being able to take a Capitol. There are some gameplay variables we don't know yet either.

If you capture an enemies Capitol, they may make it where that civ will enter into permanent war with you to take it back (for a preset amount of time; and perhaps a way to stop this also). They stated Conquest will be difficult to achieve.

So, whatever method's they have implemented, it won't be a stroll through other civ's territory, capturing Capitols easily. I believe them that it will be much tougher, but too few details to analyze yet.

 

[Chalks]

This is something that was introduced in CivRev. To clear up some confusion it should be pointed out that you don't win until you have captured ALL enemy capitals at once (and then held on to them all for a turn). If your capital city gets captured by an enemy your Civ still exists and you can still take the city back, just as before.

This works really well actually. Let's face it, if you're powerful enough to take and hold every enemy capital there's no way you'll lose. Better to just call it a win and start a new game. One change I would make would be to make the period of time when you're holding on to all the capitals slightly longer and more difficult (for example all of these civs should declare war on you and temporarily focus their objectives on taking back their capital, even if you've made peace with them. It would be one last challenge before you win).

Wouldn't this just make people move their capital deeper into their civilization? A prolonged siege and battle for an enemy capital and just before you take the city, they move the capital elsewhere. But surely they could not remove the ability to move your capital...

Is this issue resolved in Civ Rev? I have not played it.

 

[tom2050]

I think it was said that corruption won't be an issue, so it would seem that they may remove Capitol re-placement. Or they could have moving your Capitol only enabled when playing with Conquest Victory condition. They would be a bummer to see that happen after a long hard tough fight.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't understand why people seem to think the faction would disappear when losing its capital.

All it will be is a victory condition; if you occupy the (original) capital of every faction, you win the game. Until you get everyone's, its just another city you've conquered.

 

[tom2050]

There has to be advantages a Capitol gives your civilization, especially since the Capitol can't auto-move after it's taken (otherwise Conquest Victory would end up requiring the taking of all cities).

So taking a Capitol would (or should) weaken your enemies, and losing yours would weaken your civ (in some subtle way hopefully). Otherwise, it wouldn't really matter if a Capitol is lost or not.