Conquest victory

I'd be surprised. I'd bet they'd make you march all through that last civ's empire and capture what was once the original city of every other civ that is still in the game.

I'd imagine, those cities are still given some kind of special designation regardless of whether there's a palace in them or not.
 
This brings up an interesting case... what happen if you takes a Capital with one city challenge?

Perhaps that would be an exception to the OCC (you can own a Capital city) OR perhaps that might allow you to raze a Capital... making it possible to win an OCC as conquest.
 
Obviously something will be different in OCC if Capitals can't be razed, it will probably enable you to raze them, easy fix.
 
Added some comments here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=370016&page=2

Then realized it is in an obsecure forum area to figured I'd link from here.

Basically I think puppet-cities may be the solution.

Puppet cities Might be, but that violates OCC fairly substantially. But I guess if you only can have 1 puppet per civilization that you eliminate.

Perhaps you make the city a puppet that produces nothing (ie it goes into permanent civil disorder... not producing anything or counting for happiness purposes)
 
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.

I'm pretty sure conquest will mean capturing and holding ALL capital cities (original capital cites). This means that in your example, your small empire will have to capture not only the last remaining civ's capital city, but all of the capitals that they now own. You can't just wait for someone to take over the rest of the world and then take thier capital, that would lead to some really lame MP victories and would be heavily abused in single player.
 
In the case of OCC, they might just not allow you to win by conquest. How did this work in civ 4?
 
In the case of OCC, they might just not allow you to win by conquest. How did this work in civ 4?

In Civ 4 you had 2 military victories
Conquest... last civ surviving
Domination...control X% of the world's area and population

Domination was impossible with OCC, but Conquest was possible (although very hard), you just had to raze every other civs city's. (you were forced to raze any city that you took.. you might have been able to liberate it to an ally though)

Since it seems that you can't raze the capitals needed for Conquest Victory in Civ5, and an OCC is forced to raze every city they take (or liberate it to an ally) the quesion becomes what happens when an
OCC.. must raze/liberate captured cities
captures a
Capital city.. cannot be razed

One of those rules must break.

I think the rule that would break would be the OCC one they can Capture a capital... but they get no benefits from it...it acts like a city in permanent civil disorder... no production/no maintenance/no (un)happiness effects, no growth, etc.
 
Yes. In the GameStar video, the player takes Tenochtitlan (the Aztec capital), and the only options are Puppet and Annex.

Does Civ V have the "no city razing" option?
 
In Civ 4 you had 2 military victories
Conquest... last civ surviving
Domination...control X% of the world's area and population

Domination was impossible with OCC, but Conquest was possible (although very hard), you just had to raze every other civs city's. (you were forced to raze any city that you took.. you might have been able to liberate it to an ally though)
And in normal (or, non-OCC) games it was almost impossible to to win my Conquest without first achieving a Domination victory unless you razed almost every city out there :)
 
I wasn't 100% sure if it was or not, but I meant to infer that the option could be enabled in the screenshot. Do we know the game details of that shot?
 
Top Bottom