bjbrains
Man of U-235
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 837
You can't raze the 'first city founded', based on a few videos/screenshots. You have to take/hold it.
Conquest victory
- Thread starter ahmedhadzi
- Start date
"First City Built" should not be your most important city, for the AI or for yourself. What if you/they start in an awkward spot? Sure you would want to get a city started right away but as the terrain opens up (and other civs are shown), there will be other spots for a much better city that could mean more production and better protection - just like in real world history.
I'll bet my copy of CIV 5 it's exactly like it is in CIV REV. Your first built city is your capitol and you must capture everyones first built capitol. This is easy to do because they are always London, Washington, Moscow ect. In CIV REV if you Nuke a capitol and destroy it you CANNOT WIN a domination victory. I'll bet same thing here, if you raise a capitol city you and everyone else better start heading down a different victory path. It does make an interesting strategy. Game example --- Japan Nukes and wipes Washington off the map just before Russia takes the last few capitols. Plans for Russian domination victory over. Japan launches spaceship and wins with much smaller civ and no Kyoto.
I'll bet my copy of CIV 5 it's exactly like it is in CIV REV. Your first built city is your capitol and you must capture everyones first built capitol. This is easy to do because they are always London, Washington, Moscow ect. In CIV REV if you Nuke a capitol and destroy it you CANNOT WIN a domination victory. I'll bet same thing here, if you raise a capitol city you and everyone else better start heading down a different victory path. It does make an interesting strategy. Game example --- Japan Nukes and wipes Washington off the map just before Russia takes the last few capitols. Plans for Russian domination victory over. Japan launches spaceship and wins with much smaller civ and no Kyoto.
You can't destroy a capital via the nuke in CivRev. It destroys any non-capital city, but drops the capital down to 1 population.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I also assume you can't destroy city-states, since there was a piece of info what you could liberate them.
stealth_nsk
Deity
1. You can't destroy capital in any way, only conquer.
2. Nukes have very limited range.
1. That's what I was saying.
2. Yes, but subs and missile cruisers are pretty speedy.
Hey I remember what it was in CIV REV. When a noob left his capitol unprotected it could get destroyed by a barbarian then the domination victory is out of the question. So I wonder if barbs can raise a city in CIV 5. At least cities can defend themselves so it wont be to easy for a barb to destroy your cap. This seems a lesson learned from REV, like so many other things in this game.
This is a really poor mechanic, along with the diplo victory changes it's a huge step back from previous civ games.
The simple fact is that it will be possible to blitz and take multiple capitals very quickly for a cheesy win, or the game is broken in other ways.
If it's not possible to blitz and take at least three enemy capitals on the coast, usually enough to win an endgame in other words, then naval invasions are probably close to impossible anyway, which also sucks. I do think this may actually be the likely outcome - that invading from the sea/another continent will be just about impossible against the AI at a certain equitable level, and of course human players will be able to defend flawlessly aganst otherwise far more developed foes. So maybe a step backward, navies were poor enough in previous games and they got worse, I could accept that, but it's not really what everyone is hoping for I think.
The other possibility, again mentioned before, is that the AI have hardcoded some really weird obsessions about their capitals, specifically for the purpose of making conquest victory harder. This works for that idea, except it'll lead to ridiculousness in normal gameplay if a player can just take many of their other cities and cripple their empire exploiting the AI's obsession over its capital.
All these scenarios do involve some tactics and skills from the players - coordination, feints against the capital or whatnot, but in the end it still really lead to cheesy wins. There just wasn't anything wrong with the system before that they had to change it, and most probably agree it didn't work in CivRev.
And who knows, Diplo victory might be even worse in the end, after all complaining about tedium in combat/conquest victory is probably nothing to the complaints of a random player who lost a game with a huge empire, tech lead etc... and another AI was friends with more city states (since Diplo victory appears to depend not at all on population, empire size or other factors)
The simple fact is that it will be possible to blitz and take multiple capitals very quickly for a cheesy win, or the game is broken in other ways.
If it's not possible to blitz and take at least three enemy capitals on the coast, usually enough to win an endgame in other words, then naval invasions are probably close to impossible anyway, which also sucks. I do think this may actually be the likely outcome - that invading from the sea/another continent will be just about impossible against the AI at a certain equitable level, and of course human players will be able to defend flawlessly aganst otherwise far more developed foes. So maybe a step backward, navies were poor enough in previous games and they got worse, I could accept that, but it's not really what everyone is hoping for I think.
The other possibility, again mentioned before, is that the AI have hardcoded some really weird obsessions about their capitals, specifically for the purpose of making conquest victory harder. This works for that idea, except it'll lead to ridiculousness in normal gameplay if a player can just take many of their other cities and cripple their empire exploiting the AI's obsession over its capital.
All these scenarios do involve some tactics and skills from the players - coordination, feints against the capital or whatnot, but in the end it still really lead to cheesy wins. There just wasn't anything wrong with the system before that they had to change it, and most probably agree it didn't work in CivRev.
And who knows, Diplo victory might be even worse in the end, after all complaining about tedium in combat/conquest victory is probably nothing to the complaints of a random player who lost a game with a huge empire, tech lead etc... and another AI was friends with more city states (since Diplo victory appears to depend not at all on population, empire size or other factors)
Um, you know you have to hold said capitals, right? I suppose that if you're on a 2- or 3-player map that could open up for some cheese, but if you're on a standard 12-player map and you can manage a cheese win by capturing all 11 capitals (maybe all 7 if a few have been wiped out), I'd say you deserve the win. All that's doing is eliminating the tedium of going around and mopping up every last city with your army that was somehow large enough to successfully invade seven other civs at the same time.
If you let one AI get enough favor with enough city states that they can win diplo, that sounds like a legitimate loss to me. It's like getting a huge empire, tech lead etc.... and then another civ wins culture. You deserve that loss for not paying attention. In fact, it's even easier to prevent a Civ diplo victory than a CIV culture win. To prevent culture/space wins, you have to get together a big enough army and get it into position to deny the win. With city-states, all you have to do is stay on top of you C-S relations and make sure no one enemy gets enough favor to win diplo. Since all things are even in these regards unless you're playing against Alexander, I don't see why this is any different than denying other wins.
Civ5 is not Civ4.
Civ5 is not Civ4.
Civ5 is not Civ4.
You cannot roll into enemy territory with 50 units on one tile, run past their other cities (where all their defensive units are holed up, 20 to a city), rush their capital, take it, and win that turn. You cannot unload your 50 boat strong transport navy next to a coastal capital (because navies were so neglected), wait a turn as your massive one-tile large army moves, then take the coastal capital the next turn.
If you want to take a capital, you'll have to fight a long war and push through territory. You can't just walk up and take it; your enemy will meet your 1upt line in the field, or you'll cast yourself into his defensive lines and hope to punch through. On top of that, units take time to kill - you'll have to spend multiple men/turns trying to make headway, hoping that there aren't more defenders on the way. And if you try for a small strike force aimed at the capital, the enemy's going to flank you from behind, tear through your exposed archers/siege, and wipe you out. Stop thinking that cities are somehow easy to take, because they're not.
If the city's on the coast? You can be almost certain that, if there's any possibility of war, the coastal capital will have a naval garrison in its radius, if only to stop naval bombardment. To say nothing of the possibility of guarded coasts to prevent a landing->march. Unless you're doing a 1:1 combat:transport fleet (which would be ungodly expensive), losing even one ship will result in multiple land units sinking. If you want to try a landing/amphibious assault, you're going to have to spend some time planning it, and hope that your military estimates/intelligence is right.
stealth_nsk
Deity
That means what the player with large Empire was very dumb. If you have stronger forces, you need to ally or conquer the city states. Especially if anyone starts building UN.
No real problems here.
King Jason
Fleece-bearer
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,096
Except that it appears it would require a significant economic investment to reach allied status with enough city-states to win the diplo-victory. Considering the primary method of acquiring influence is gifting gold.
Or take the opponent out all together. Which shouldn't be hard if you have a huge empire, a tech lead, and "etc.."
We've seen the UI that indicates victory conditions and who's closer to what victories... if you let someone win it's your own fault. I don't see how the diplo victory is any less stupid than one discovering that they're about to lose because someone "built a spaceship".
And don't forget that your relationship with city states deteriorates over time if you don't keep investing in it, so diplo-victory seems to be anything but easy. In fact, it's probably the closest thing to an economic victory that Civ has ever seen.
Tarkhan
King
I'd think you'd also get a lot of influence with a city state by taking it from an enemy and giving it back independence.
To be fair Civ Rev had an entirely economical victory condition which I liked, if you saved up 20k gold then you could win by building the world bank, which added another way to use gold, to win the game even.
Now we have Gold (as well as other things) that can be spent to help a diplomatic victory, a pure "Economic" win would be hard on Civ5 to balance well with the others as the main Civ PC titles tend to have very long games with all victory conditions some what depending on large amounts of tech advancement. In Civ5 this is no different, culture victory can't be achieved till you unlock 5 branches of the social policy, which will only be done after science progression, military victory will not be easy to gain (accept on duel/tiny maps) and you will want science progress to get better troops, (& long conquest time = large science progression), diplomatic requires unlocking the UN, and science is self explanitory.
Now we have Gold (as well as other things) that can be spent to help a diplomatic victory, a pure "Economic" win would be hard on Civ5 to balance well with the others as the main Civ PC titles tend to have very long games with all victory conditions some what depending on large amounts of tech advancement. In Civ5 this is no different, culture victory can't be achieved till you unlock 5 branches of the social policy, which will only be done after science progression, military victory will not be easy to gain (accept on duel/tiny maps) and you will want science progress to get better troops, (& long conquest time = large science progression), diplomatic requires unlocking the UN, and science is self explanitory.
Yes, the financial burden will be harsh in trying to keep that many city states friendly.
Also, city states seem to squabble with each other a lot apparently. They have shown numerous times, city states that give you missions to attack other city states. It will be extremely hard to keep a large number of city states happy I think. Diplomatic victories will be extremely challenging I think, which is a good thing.
Similar threads
