He is not scared enough

[gunter]

I still have to try harder levels but when I demolish an enemy capitol city wiping out all the cultural stuff the enemy seems to taking it quite easy and there is no special penalties in terms of how his population is scared by such a show.

I believe a special scare factor should trigger for 20 turns among population when you destroy an enemy capitol city. The same speech for the own population that should trigger into more happy faces for at least 5 turns.

Am I missing anything or there no real benefit to perform demo shows ?

thanks

 

[Inspector Javert]

i agree that taking the capital should have serious consequences, lets be honest if you take someones capital then you will kill/capture most if not all of the government officials save for those who got out early.

here's my proposition:

If you capital is razed then your Civ goes into anarchy and stays in anarchy until you build a new palace what do you guys think?

 

[quiddity]

and how do you build a new palace in anarchy ?

 

[Uberfrog]

i agree that taking the capital should have serious consequences, lets be honest if you take someones capital then you will kill/capture most if not all of the government officials save for those who got out early.

here's my proposition:

If you capital is razed then your Civ goes into anarchy and stays in anarchy until you build a new palace what do you guys think?

As well as the problem the previous poster suggested, anarchy would also leave all the remaining cities with no defense bonus (in much the same way as a spy instigating a revolt would) for many turns, and so easy to invade and wipe the city out.

Now I know that by destroying the capital you effectively decapitate the country, but in the interests of a fun game to play, I'm not sure only needing to take the capital before the rest of the empire just falls down before you would be that much fun.

One or two turns of anarchy, fair enough, I suppose, though. As that is something that would cause anarchy.

 

[MrWhereItsAt]

I loved how in Civ you would sometimes get an empire splitting in two if you took the capital - I believe the case was if you took the capital before any other of their cities. That would be neat with the whole cultural influence system - the cities with some proportion of other (past or present) civs' culture would defect to create a breakaway province or independent state. Think about how often that has happened in the last 60 years in the real world.

 

[Aneurism]

Razing the capital would certainly demoralize a human player... thats something at least

 

[bonafide11]

and how do you build a new palace in anarchy ?

Great point for your first post...

 

[Dida]

razing his capital should give him anarchy for a few turns, maybe his remaining cities can have a chance of going into civil unrest for a few turns.

 

[agentsmith952]

You could also add unhappiness for all the civ's remaining cities for a set time.

 

[Inspector Javert]

oh yeah I forgot you couldn't build in anarchy, ok maybe your civ reverts back to the first civics (Paganism, barbarianism etc.) until you build the new palace

 

[Dida]

oh yeah I forgot you couldn't build in anarchy, ok maybe your civ reverts back to the first civics (Paganism, barbarianism etc.) until you build the new palace

this is totally ridiculous, name one instance where a civ reverted back to barbarianism because its capital was taken.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I loved how in Civ you would sometimes get an empire splitting in two if you took the capital - I believe the case was if you took the capital before any other of their cities.

I believe the condition was that the opposing empire was larger than you (more cities). And yeah - I do wish they would have that in this game!

 

[Infantry#14]

nah, i think a more severe penalty for taking a capital is that all the enemy cities will pay higher maintence due to the lack of a capital. That would be much more wicked.

 

[AfterShafter]

this is totally ridiculous, name one instance where a civ reverted back to barbarianism because its capital was taken.

Name one instance where Socrates was born to Napoleon of the Aztecs in the year 1923 AD, because it's quite possible in the game we're all playing. Not saying I like his idea, but historical arguments aren't worth the bandwidth they're sent through in arguments about Civ.

About the idea - penalizing an enemy Civ for losing a capital city kind of makes sense, but I'd say there are two pretty compelling gameplay reasons not to.

One,the obvious - if the enemy Civ is losing their capital, that's quite the punishment in itself and WILL hurt their empire in a big way... You kick them while they're down by plunging them into anarchy or something, that'll likely be the nail in the coffin in a lot of games. I don't think a nation that's being beaten on hard enough to lose their capital really needs another penalty, in the interest of competitiveness.

Two, as it stands, losing your capital immediately gives you another capital. This would have to be changed and a new capital system implemented, otherwise multiple capitals could be taken out in the course of a few turns, multiplying any "punishment."... And depending on the system, it's possible a nation could have on capital whatsoever.

 

[L4zXX0r]

Firstly, destroying an enemy capitol is not a great idea. I'd much rather take their capitol, and use it against them, since it probaby has really good resources and such. Though if you were going to destroy one, it should maybe make the civ offer peace to you automatically (or vassalage), or perhaps if any cities border yours, one or two might ask to join you.

 

[JKWSN]

Why not add a chance for vassals (even the capitulated ones) and colonies to declare they are free states?