Fall of a civilization

[Naokaukodem]

What if when we conquer the capital of a civ, it does not always move? This way the civ would be conquered, and the remaining cities become neutral. Those cities would have a soft defense of course, and may surrender against a bigger number of troops. After a certain time not being conquered, those cities would ally themselves and form a new civilization.

 

[warpstorm]

Then the obvious stragety is to make a thrust for the capital all the time since you can lop off the head. There would not be much point in wasting time conquering the other cities till after you went for the capital.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You can protect your capital as any other city. The more important the city, the more you protect it. I think it would not be too hard too handle with the AI.

 

[Rodatam]

i dont agree with that...
BUT
i think the loss of the capital need to have more consequences.... i mean, nothing happens now...
you just lose a big city and thats all

 

[Naokaukodem]

In civ2 i think IIRC that you had to pay something in order to move it.
In civ2 & civ3 it displaced the center of the anti-corruption.
What about civ4 (i don't have it yet)?

Why are you not agree btw?

 

[Mick Malawi]

Im very agree!!!
I think that in Civ2, when you conquested the capital of a civ, it was the possibility that appeared a revolution and the civilization crashed in two (one of them whole new), like a civil war. It is right and very interesting, and it makes most realistic the game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

i thing you should simply have no capitol until you build a new palace. That would mean very high maintenance cost as distance from capitol would be huge (infinite).

You could not build it.

What's interesting with my idea is that you would have to choose to defend either your capital and be safe, or your border cities and keep your empire. It would be a balance. Assuming that you would defend your frontiers, there would a simulation of a real war while the enemy want to go to a precise direction: there would be more "war of trenches" (Google traduction) and the tactical wars would be more interesting with positionning and terrain bonuses uses.

 

[warpstorm]

I don't think so. It'll be just like in Civ2. One shot to the head and it's all over.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't think so. It'll be just like in Civ2. One shot to the head and it's all over.

I don't think it was like that in Civ2. As I have heard, civilization splits were very rare. (and it were splits, not losses) And I did not head to the capital during my civ2 games IIRC.
Anyway, what's wrong with Civ2?

I was wrong when I said that the AI could handle it pretty easily. As I know from Civ3, the AI defends itself city by city. It is not able to use their cities as "communicant muds". Change this, and you would have much more difficulty to reach one AI civ's capital. Make it able to organize front lines, and you have a pretty funny game engine.

Don't be so stubborn while discussing others ideas please, it makes me want to knock your head.

 

[warpstorm]

Stubborness is how I get the changes I want into the game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

May I interject as the 'voice of moderation'. I think both Naokaukodem and Warpstorm have a point. On the one hand, Capital cities SHOULD be much more important than they currently are. After all, the Capital city of most nations/empires DOES tend to be the ultimate goal of most conquerers. Just look at Hannibal in Italy, the Allies in Germany and the Coalition in Iraq.
However, the loss of the Capital shouldn't be TOO destructive, or else-as Warpstorm rightly puts it-a quick 'shot to the head' and your game is over. Now, you may have no problem with that happening to the AI, but what if it happened to YOU?
Anyway, an idea I toyed with in Civ3, and which could work in Civ4, is to have certain National 'Projects' which can only be built in the city containing your capital. Such projects would have effects like boosting culture in all your cities, boosting Great Person rate, boosting the promotion rate of your troops, increasing the defence rate, and reducing the maintainance costs of your cities, for example. Now, if you lose the Capital, you lose these Wonders too. It won't end the game for you, but it also won't let you get off scot free.
Another thing which I think Trip has done in his Rebellion Mod is that, if you lose your Capital (and/or if you have cities far from your Capital), then Barbarian units are more likely to spawn near your cities, to reflect an internal uprising.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Heero Blaze]

Taking a Capital should definantely have a great effect on the nation as a whole, but not one so extreme that taking the capital would cause an entire nation to collapse, they would make wars too easy. Taking a Capital should do one of two things: Weaken the empire as a whole or inspire the nation to fight on, and both would depend on the Capital and it's culture (whether or not the nation feels it would be worth saving) and Civics (a population of oppressed people would probably be happier to see their capital fall. Weakening the nation could cause low morale among troops (-10% to all troops attacking and defending), increased cost of Civivs, or even a revolt from the people themselves (Russia was being beat in WWI and the people revolted and ended it). On the other hand, taking a capital could make citizens so angry that they will sacrafice themselves to take it back and win the war. So in that case, cities could draft more troops without penalties (or have volunteer troops), enemies moving into hostile territory could be attacked by local citizens (reducing their strength), and the capital itself should have a higher chance of revolting and turning back into the original owner's hands. This way, the capital has a greater strategic value.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Now, you may have no problem with that happening to the AI, but what if it happened to YOU?

You lose, Aussie_Lurker, you lose.

Anyway, that never happened to me to lose my capital, unless it was on the path of some Deity or Sid army.

Anyway, an idea I toyed with in Civ3, and which could work in Civ4, is to have certain National 'Projects' which can only be built in the city containing your capital. Such projects would have effects like boosting culture in all your cities, boosting Great Person rate, boosting the promotion rate of your troops, increasing the defence rate, and reducing the maintainance costs of your cities, for example. Now, if you lose the Capital, you lose these Wonders too.

Good idea, but you would never have enough of those projects to do in your capital because of the preciousity of the shield.

Another thing which I think Trip has done in his Rebellion Mod is that, if you lose your Capital (and/or if you have cities far from your Capital), then Barbarian units are more likely to spawn near your cities, to reflect an internal uprising.

I did not know the existence of this mod. Alas, it may do the contrary effect, as people won't want to take an AI capital if it is to deal with barbarians in their new conquered cities.

they would make wars too easy

No it would not be too easy. A whole new strategy would take place, but it would not be too easy or too hard, just the same, except that you would have to organize your troops more carefully probably. (in defense) In attack, I admit the AI would need to be reworked.

By the way, As I already said, the civ would not fall everytime. There would be a chance to, maybe smaller than the capital have chances to move, or it would not be funny.

Additionnaly, the remaining cities after a civ fall would continue to produce units, but for they own count. If you were to conquer them, you may not see any difference with if the civ would not have fell, even with the actual AI. (except that they would be suceptible to surrender more easily, according to the number of troops before them)

Finally, if you make a civilization to fall, other civilizations could jump at its remaining civ and "steal" those city to you, so you would have to decalre war to them if you want those cities. So you may not want to kill the capital first.

 

[warpstorm]

Anyway, that never happened to me to lose my capital, unless it was on the path of some Deity or Sid army.

What if the AI was reprogrammed to send a Stack-O-Doom to your capital as it's main objective?

 

[Naokaukodem]

What if the AI was reprogrammed to send a Stack-O-Doom to your capital as it's main objective?

fun!

 

[Iuvavus]

There could be a King-unit like in the Civ3-regecide games. When the captal is conquered, it is bad, but not the end of the civilization. But when the king unit is killed, the civilisation has lost and it's cities and units become barbarian.

 

[Brighteye]

I remember my first ever Civ 2 game. I started with a fair amount of land, expanded and ended up attacking Rome, which was on the join of two peninsulas which made the Roman empire. The empire split in two, which was great fun. It never happened again, though.
It would be good if more empire splits and merges did happend through history, and having this depend on the capital makes sense. Perhaps all the capital-specific improvements make taking the capital more damaging, perhaps giving unhappiness if it's taken, but also make the risk of secession and barbarians less, because citizens may be unhappy, but their identity is so bound up with the capital that they're not so keen on taking advantage of the situation any more.
The chance of a split would have to be big enough that it happened relatively frequently, or else it's just not worth going through all the hassle for.

 

[Rainlife]

Anyway, that never happened to me to lose my capital, unless it was on the path of some Deity or Sid army.

not to you
but you're not the only one playing the game, there are others don't are more of a level of losing their capital at noble or even chieftain. implementing this would be a real turn-off for them don't you think ? and after all the game is supposed to be fun no ? this also goes for starting players or those don't really care about "growing into the game" but just want to play and enjoy

 

[Naokaukodem]

No I don't think so, because the game would play differently. Who ever would let his capital alone knowing it can be his loss?

Anyway, who ever lost his capital? I mean, if it comes to really happen, the players probably just quit the game as I do. There's no fun in civ to play the tiny civilization with no operation margin.

 

[SewerStarFish]

Then the obvious stragety is to make a thrust for the capital all the time since you can lop off the head. There would not be much point in wasting time conquering the other cities till after you went for the capital.

I great idea for a tech ... or civic, say B-cracy. Without the tech lose your capital lose the game, with it then your palace jumps. If you have a FP then you have to lose both cities.

If an AI civ falls by capital loss - the AI could respawn or make an extraordinary offer for peace.

Heck, at least it's a cool MP rule option.