Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ahmedhadzi, Aug 12, 2010.
Here's the thread about:
I think you're still thinking in civ4 war mechanics. With the one unit per tile rule you won't be able to move a mini-SOD into the first coastal capitol you conquer, so you'll have to fend off Foreign civ A's entire army with whatever troops you can land, all while trying to capture foreign civ B's capitol.
The best way to get both of them is to split your forces and take them both on the same turn, but this is balanced by the fact that you can't build two armies of doom because of the resource requirements for fielding units.
Basically, I think winning Conquest sounds much easier to do that it actually will be.
This will be fun to try out in a succession game with the rules that you can only capture one of each enemy's cities but must win by conquest...
1. No domination victory any more.
2. No real confirmation if civ's can rebuild a new capital, or move capitals, I will assume its not in or that its been configured to work with the conquest victory condition
In Civ 4 I hated war because of the Stacks of Death because of how unfair it was. Now I think I probably will try for domination. Since I love playing Russia the domination victory will be easier.
I'm actually still kinda puzzled over how the whole thing will work. If one civ takes 7 out of 9 capitols leaving just us, do I win if I take his capitol, since I'd be taking the last capitol? Or do I have to take all of his cities that were capitols to another civ? Or if other civs can rebuild their capitols do I have to take their new capitols? And what do I do if they simply don't build another one? And what happens when a civ surrenders to you, are you now at peace? Can you declare war on them again right away? Do they have to give in to any demand you make of them from there on out? Are they allowed to just declare war on you again right away and take their capitol back? Can they still vote in the UN?
no, no, I'm not asking you to speculate, I'm just going to wait and see how it works. There's no point in answering unless you're Greg.
And tbh, I really don't see why you can't just rush all the capitols if you're looking for a quick conquest victory. Taking the important cities along the way may be good strategy and good for your empire overall, but I don't see what stops people who want a cheap win from bringing some frigates and landing some troops and burning a coastal capital to the ground (on the kinds of maps I play, all capitals are coastal). Then there's the nuke/paratrooper combination which should end any game pretty quickly if you have enough of a tech lead to do it to them before they can do it to you.
Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that I won't have to spend an hour scouring the map to find whatever pissant, backwater city built in a ridiculous location is left. But I'm curious about how this is going to work and what's going to stop cheap and easy conquests.
I think the OP has a point. If you conquer your continent and there are only 2 coastal capitals remaining on the other continent, you could conceivably capture both coastal capitals on the same turn and win the game immediately. No chance for the AI to re-capture them which it might be able to do easily.
In my first game I'm going to get to the last AI capitol then STOP and wait to conquer every last city and city state!!!
That is a lot of 'what if' in there, but if you can manage to pull a strategy like that together and it works, why shouldn't you be rewarded for it? If they're on different continents you won't be doing it with stone age warriors so it involves a lot more than simply rushing from turn one.
This was how things worked in CivRev and it played out fine. It makes the capital of your civilization the most important city you have, which it should be.
I think it has more to do with multiplayer than single player. In multiplayer, you don't really want the game to drag on as you try to hunt down a players last city out on an island somewhere. Your only required to take the capital. If you want to take all the cities, you still can.
And field two armies?
And win both fronts of a two-front war?
And successfully take the enemy's best-defended city via amphibious assault?
Or, you're attacking from inland, so you're winning this through constant naval bombardment?
And coordinate all this so well that you take both capitals on the exact same turn?
If you can do that, you deserve to win.
I could probably pull that off!
I'm going to assume that if you force an enemy to capitulate and they become a puppet state that would still count as possession of the capital. If you look at Germany in WWII and Vichy France, there was little doubt that Germany had won a conquest victory over France. I just wish they would release the demo already so we didn't have to speculate so much.
Puppet states in Civ5 aren't like Civ4 vassals. We don't know if there is any kind of capitulation.
Puppet states are basically cities within your empire that you turn over to a governor to choose what to build (and how to allocate citizens) in order to reduce the unhappiness they contribute.
I believe its been confirmed that vassals are out
We dont know for sure what happens when we take an enemys capital.
a) Can they build a new one,
b) can they do this before loosing the original,
c) do they get a new one automatically assigned (like civ4 - doubtful),
d) is the original capital still a capital, i.e the captor now has 2 capitals,
e) will it simply become a normal city permanently from then on.
I could probably make up some other alternatives too, I reckon d) is the most likely, but that would be nothing other than logical assumption, we shouldn't make other assumptions on assumptions so I will stop at , I think it will be d) and won't go into what that would do to the conquest victory.
One thing I always liked about earlier Civs was that once you captured the capital city of a large civilization, there was a chance that their empire would split up. I wonder if this feature will return to Civ5.
Making a "mad dash" toward the enemy capital(s) should prove to be difficult with the ZoC and 1upt mechanics.
From screen shot's it looks like... it might well be e), a conquered capital turns into a normal city.
& a) One assumes that a civ without a capital will then be allowed to build a palace. (We saw france with a new capital after losing Paris.)
We will see.
No it doesn't look like, nor should capturing an enemy Capital affect the rest of their empire.
Perhaps if a distinction was made between "The First City Built" and "Capital", that would make this conversation easier.
My understanding is that if you capture all the "First Cities Built", you win. If you capture an enemies "First City Built" it will be able to build a new "Capital" by building a Palace. This will allow them to get their trade routes back up, and continue playing without being entirely crippled, until they get entirely wiped out.
This seems like an easy enough concept. The game will be able to track if the very first cities built on the map are still in their owner's possession, or even existent (As they can be razed). If ever there is a player who has the only "First City Built" on the map that he/she started with, they win.
Oh yeah, that is a good point there, what would happen if you raze the capitols? Do you still win conquest win.
I understand that some people don't agree with me on this issue, and yes I agree that it is bit tedious running around the map looking for that last city, but what I don't like is going from tedious to oversimplified. I still think that this win type could be heavily abused.
Separate names with a comma.