Conquest victory

[Polobo]

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.

Gifting units is pretty good too and make the C-S harder to conquer if you go to war; missions may be a mixed bag depending on how aggressive the C-S wants you to be.

My guess is that later policies make getting and keeping C-S allies easier. I'd also be curious if they not only make the UN enable the diplomatic victory condition but also give its builder an advantage with C-S.

But even though "natural decay" should decrease over time that also makes it harder to break an alliance that the opponents have formed.

 

[Lyoncet]

My guess is that later policies make getting and keeping C-S allies easier. I'd also be curious if they not only make the UN enable the diplomatic victory condition but also give its builder an advantage with C-S.

It looks like the Patronage tree is all specifically tailored to giving extra bonuses to city-state relations and benefits.

Patronage

Patronage enhances the benefits of City-State friendship. Influence with City-States degrades 50% slower than normal.

* Aesthetics
* Cultural Diplomacy
* Educated Elite: Allied City-States will occasionally gift you Great People.
* Philanthropy
* Scholasticism
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_cities.html

Unfortunately, we only know the adoption bonus and the Educated Elite effect, but they both seem really, really good.

 

[Earthling]

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.

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.

You all just misunderstood me - I don't think I will ever have problems losing in such a way or losing at all to the AI on any but the highest difficulty levels.

However, I am sure there will be dozens of players who do show up and complain about it. In the context of the design philosophy the developers are applying, they have failed here. If they want to alter they combat system for your so-called "dumb" players who don't get probability, then leaving a way for a newbie player to overlook diplomacy and lose all of a sudden will cause frustration. We witness all the time how often players DO complain about the AI winning culture or something when they weren't paying attention.

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.

I can guarantee this statement is just wrong. Fundamentally, I know I'm right here, but I don't want to argue too much if people won't get it. It is of course a positive that this problem is less effective on larger maps, taking out the last 2 or 3 civs is probably at the point where you would be equivalent to domination victory anyway.

But if it's possible to invade from the sea at all, then it will be possible to take (and hold, sure) coastal capitals by cheese. On a standard map with six opponents, winning the game with hardly battling 2 or 3 opponents at the end will be possible, and players will do it, or we will have a situation where offensive warfare just becomes impossible. Saying to up the difficulty or just saying players shouldn't do it that way isn't really a solution.

 

[StStutter]

You all just misunderstood me - I don't think I will ever have problems losing in such a way or losing at all to the AI on any but the highest difficulty levels.

However, I am sure there will be dozens of players who do show up and complain about it. In the context of the design philosophy the developers are applying, they have failed here. If they want to alter they combat system for your so-called "dumb" players who don't get probability, then leaving a way for a newbie player to overlook diplomacy and lose all of a sudden will cause frustration. We witness all the time how often players DO complain about the AI winning culture or something when they weren't paying attention.

The reason developers added this is because they want diplomacy to really matter in the game. It is now equally as important to make sure that you stay on top of diplomacy as you do with technology, economy and military.

Complaining about this would be equivalent to complaining that that you had all the cultural, technological and diplomatic advantages but you got crushed by a stronger military. Your point is moot.

I can guarantee this statement is just wrong. Fundamentally, I know I'm right here, but I don't want to argue too much if people won't get it. It is of course a positive that this problem is less effective on larger maps, taking out the last 2 or 3 civs is probably at the point where you would be equivalent to domination victory anyway.

But if it's possible to invade from the sea at all, then it will be possible to take (and hold, sure) coastal capitals by cheese. On a standard map with six opponents, winning the game with hardly battling 2 or 3 opponents at the end will be possible, and players will do it, or we will have a situation where offensive warfare just becomes impossible. Saying to up the difficulty or just saying players shouldn't do it that way isn't really a solution.

Think about the logistics of a naval invasion for a second before you spew nonsense.

Let me lay it out for you.

You've embarked all your units as defenseless transports to begin their cross to another continent. You'll bring your navy in to help protect these transports by guarding the outskirts of the transport group.

You will be nervous that the enemy has some ships gurading the coast of his capital, so you scout and find out he has a few more than you'd expect, because its his capital. You use your navy perfectly to ensure his ships dont outmaneuver yours and kill your hapless transports. You take some losses, but your concentrated navy takes out his preliminary defenses. As you start to take your frigates closer, the capital starts to bombard them and you notice that the AI has started to bring some gruond forces close in the case of a landing.

You can't land your transports right next to the city because otherwise the range attack of it will kill them. You can't weaken the city enough with your navy either because of some cannons on the shore helping it and you're fairly sure he's bringing the rest of his navy from across the globe so you have to land fast otherwise you'll inevitably lose at least some transports.

If you manage to find a weakly defended beachhead somewhere close, you use your navy to bombard the crap out of the units stationed there and land your first wave of about 4 units (remember only one unit can land on a hex at a time). You've now made your first inroads in to their continent!

However, the AI quickly relocates his forces and surrounds you, you have time to land some more units, but most of yours aren't well positioned on defensible terrain considering you're cramming as many in as possible. Then the real battle begins with your troops surrounded, outnumbered and attempting to land the rest of your forces safely.

If you manage to push his troops back a hex or two, you can land more units. If his superior numbers and positioning allows him to kill some of your units, you find yourself in an even worse position without the ability to reinforce (no spots to land in!).

You must keep your navy there to defend your ground units and transports in the water from his approaching navy but can non longer attack the AI's land troops from the sea because they're engaged with his own navy. If your navy wins, you still have a chance. If not, you'll be obliterated from both land and sea.

Through impressive tactical decisions, you manage to gain the upper hand on land. You now begin the battle to reach his capital. This may only be a few hexes away (very possibly more), but he will use everything he's got to turn you back. There's still a long, bloody battle left.

If you manage to do all this on more than one front. Well you deserve to win a domination victory. As simple as that.

 

[12agnar0k]

That sounds like a great beach invasion situation, i'm loving this games enchanced naval abilities.

 

[ShaqFu]

I can guarantee this statement is just wrong. Fundamentally, I know I'm right here, but I don't want to argue too much if people won't get it.

How silly of me to not simply take your arguments - which rely on improbable concoctions as "what if you take all the capitals on the same turn via naval assault, because it's so easy?" - as a priori truth. Perhaps you should contact the American Philosophical Society and tell them that, along with "I am," the statement "Earthling is right about combat models in games he's never played" is an unquestionable truth.

Congratulations on overcoming 2500 years of philosophical discourse!

 

[cccv]

You can't raze the 'first city founded', based on a few videos/screenshots. You have to take/hold it.

Was there a screenshot where we could explicitly see that annex/puppet were the only options when trying to take a capitol? God I hope not, this would be the stupidest thing they could do with the game. You decide to burn down all their cities but in the end you're forced to keep one city in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the map as the rest of your empire? Bullcrap.

 

[Polobo]

Was there a screenshot where we could explicitly see that annex/puppet were the only options when trying to take a capitol? God I hope not, this would be the stupidest thing they could do with the game. You decide to burn down all their cities but in the end you're forced to keep one city in the middle of nowhere on the other side of the map as the rest of your empire? Bullcrap.

Why? You simply turn it into a puppet state. It'd basically act like a city-state at that point.

Besides the fact that razing an entire civilization, and not wanting to keep the capital city, seems just as stupid as the fact that you cannot raze a first-built-city I can think of plenty of other decisions Firaxis could have made that would be considerably more stupid than this...

I'd be curious how often people in Civ4 would actually end up razing the capital city AND NOT place their own city in the same or similar location.

That said; maybe allow the capital to be razed if it is the last standing city would be a good idea; but you'd have to capture/destroy every other city FIRST otherwise the whole idea of allowing you NOT to have to capture every city become impossible (since part of the idea is that you have to HOLD to first-built-capital as well).

 

[Lyoncet]

^ This

Puppet States > your argument.

 

[cccv]

How does making it a puppet state make it any better? You still have to divert your forces to defend the worthless, decimated cities in the middle of nowhere that you want nothing to do with. And even worse they've taken away the immense satisfaction of pointing your army at some jerk who demanded gold from you one too many times, burning everything to the ground, and leaving no one alive.

 

[Polobo]

How does making it a puppet state make it any better? You still have to divert your forces to defend the worthless, decimated cities in the middle of nowhere that you want nothing to do with. And even worse they've taken away the immense satisfaction of pointing your army at some jerk who demanded gold from you one too many times, burning everything to the ground, and leaving no one alive.

No need to defend it; if you go back to war just realize you are probably going to lose it.

There have been some discussion on whether razing should even be allowed; especially for large cities. I'm actually of the mind that it should not be allowed and thus utter aniliation would not be possible anyway.

In the end, for me, no single decision or feature - missing or included - makes the game; but instead it is the experience as a whole. Maybe they will add an option for you to "require complete kills" so you can or have to utterly destroy or capture every city on the map - for every opponent - just like in 4.

 

[Polobo]

The "victory conditions" screenshot here: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_misc.html
says "7 Players are still in control of their * Capitals" but the image is showing what appears to be the icons for ALL civilizations and all city-states. Has it been stated anywhere that either

A) All civs and city-states must have their capital captured
B) All civs and and any non-allied city-states much have their capital captured
C) All civs must have their captial captured; city-states are optional

"A" would make for an odd end-game where you have city-state allies helping you and then, in order to win, you have to conquer them as well.

"B" or "C" make the most sense though "C" is what the condition appears to read as; but then why show all the icons in the victory condition screen?

 

[vusak]

i think if you raze a city, it should turn into a barbarian camp with number of troops = 5 - population size. ie. any city < 6 population just disappears off the map.

so you burn a 25pop mega city and you face 20 very angry terrorist rebels

 

[Sonereal]

You've embarked all your units as defenseless transports to begin their cross to another continent. You'll bring your navy in to help protect these transports by guarding the outskirts of the transport group.

This is probably a good time to mention that you should probably have done something about the enemy navy a while ago. I doubt bombers can port bomb though.

You will be nervous that the enemy has some ships gurading the coast of his capital, so you scout and find out he has a few more than you'd expect, because its his capital. You use your navy perfectly to ensure his ships dont outmaneuver yours and kill your hapless transports. You take some losses, but your concentrated navy takes out his preliminary defenses. As you start to take your frigates closer, the capital starts to bombard them and you notice that the AI has started to bring some gruond forces close in the case of a landing.

Yeah. I can see that. Makes perfect sense too. MP amphibious invasions will be so much more interesting as well in this regard.

You can't land your transports right next to the city because otherwise the range attack of it will kill them. You can't weaken the city enough with your navy either because of some cannons on the shore helping it and you're fairly sure he's bringing the rest of his navy from across the globe so you have to land fast otherwise you'll inevitably lose at least some transports.

This sounds more like poor planning than anything else.

If you manage to find a weakly defended beachhead somewhere close, you use your navy to bombard the crap out of the units stationed there and land your first wave of about 4 units (remember only one unit can land on a hex at a time). You've now made your first inroads in to their continent!

Congrats!

However, the AI quickly relocates his forces and surrounds you, you have time to land some more units, but most of yours aren't well positioned on defensible terrain considering you're cramming as many in as possible. Then the real battle begins with your troops surrounded, outnumbered and attempting to land the rest of your forces safely.

Again sounds like poor planning and not knowing thy enemy.

If you manage to push his troops back a hex or two, you can land more units. If his superior numbers and positioning allows him to kill some of your units, you find yourself in an even worse position without the ability to reinforce (no spots to land in!).

Really, I'm chalking this to poor planning.

You must keep your navy there to defend your ground units and transports in the water from his approaching navy but can non longer attack the AI's land troops from the sea because they're engaged with his own navy. If your navy wins, you still have a chance. If not, you'll be obliterated from both land and sea.

Not every naval invasion will be Sealion-esque

Through impressive tactical decisions, you manage to gain the upper hand on land. You now begin the battle to reach his capital. This may only be a few hexes away (very possibly more), but he will use everything he's got to turn you back. There's still a long, bloody battle left.

I don't think so...establishing the beachhead was the hard part. Now you can constantly land more and more troops.

If you manage to do all this on more than one front. Well you deserve to win a domination victory. As simple as that.

Grabbing a capital won't be easy but not all players will be that terrible at planning (such as only landing on one beach).

 

[Xetal]

Being stuck with your first city as your capital for the rest of the game would be a terrible game design.

Hopefully you can build a palace and move your capital (which then becomes the enemy objective of a domination victory). That system would let you move your capital, assuming you're willing to spend the massive hammers needed to do so. It would also allow a "capture the capitals and hold them" form of domination victory, where each Civ has only one palace.

 

[Thyrwyn]

From the 2K Forums:

Originally posted by 2K Greg
When your capitol is conquered, a different city is designated your new capitol. But your original capitol is still the one required for domination victory. You can definitely take it back.

Having your capitol taken does not eliminate you from the game.

There is no indication as to whether or not you can move your capital voluntarily.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Being stuck with your first city as your capital for the rest of the game would be a terrible game design.

Why? Without distance penalties, what's the importan gameplay reason for moving your capital.

 

[cccv]

Why? Without distance penalties, what's the importan gameplay reason for moving your capital.

To move it to the center of your empire so it can't be the first city someone takes if you're invaded.

 

[stealth_nsk]

To move it to the center of your empire so it can't be the first city someone takes if you're invaded.

I think it will be more interesting if player will be forced to make more complex measures to protect their capitals.

P.S. I see another reason - with the current trade route system, capital level is vital, but I hope noone will start in mountains.

 

[12agnar0k]

Was there a screenshot where we could explicitly see that annex/puppet were the only options when trying to take a capitol? God I hope not, this would be the stupidest thing they could do with the game.

The reason it can't be razed is a simple one, Conquest is given to the last Civ that still owns its Original City (Logical Assumption from known evidence). By not allowing this City to be razed means that even though you have taken the Capital of say France, if you leave the French Empire alone, you have its capital now, no point continuing the fight, However, the French can build an army sufficient enough with whatever resources it has left to take back its Capital if you are coming close to a Conquest Victory, which will prevent you from being the only Civ with its original capital.

So it really does make sense, hopefully this is apparent now. It add's a bit more challenge because you can't raze the capitals of your enemies, so you have to maintain them as well as your army, and protect them as well as conquer other capitals. You can't simply Steam Roll everything and raze/vassalise everything you touch any more, you have to raze or conquer permentally the cities, and conquer the capitals permentally.

.............

As far as other information on conquest.

We can now make a logical assumption based on the tid bits of information we have on Conquest, all together though it strings in a somewhat unathoadox manner to actually make sense.

1. Okay now from a "winning condition" screen shot, we can see that Enemy capitals conquered are not counted as "capitals" for the conquerer, they are simply crossed out.

2. We saw from a screen shot of Paris that France had lost its capital city to the Germans, but their was a new *Capital Symbol* for France on a different City.
So replacing Capitals is in.

3. From a Gamescon report, "Palaces are not able to be built" which means you certainly won't be able to manually choose where to put your capital, it stays at its original location till conquered. The only question remaining is how is the new one decided, does the option to build a palace suddenly become available (I ask why isn't it merely shown but greyed out then), or is one automatically assigned like Civ4.
The latter makes the most sense.

So from these points, the logical assumption based on known facts, (and thats all it really is, till confirmed without a doubt) is that "Conquest Victory will go to the last Civ to control its Original City." Or more accurately "To the last Civ to control its Palace." Which assumeably remains in your Original City when conquered, this differeniates between capitals for trade routes and for conquest.

This however has an additional effect with "Original Cities" being the deciding factor, if you a small empire and huge warmongeror are the only two civ's with capitals left, if you use your small ignored forces to launch a suprise attack and take your enemies Original Capital, you will be the only Civ left with its Original City, this means you win. Against all the odds, after the other guy did all the work. This is true to the new Civ5 principle of "you can see a victory coming and stop it" e.g, hunting spaceship parts or conquering the city building the utopia project, or hunting down a diplomats allies and making them extinct. I look forward to sneakily ruining someones plans for victory .