Should holding capitals be more difficult?

[bcaiko]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently: Should there be a mechanic that encourages you to give back a capital to its original owner? Or should the AI request its capital back in peace deals?

Historically, I can't think of too many examples of a war ending where a civilization keeps a capital city as part of its empire (yes, yes, I know people are going to cite Constantinople, ect., I said *many*, not *none*). Captured capitals usually meant the end of the war: concessions were made and the capital is relinquished. But in Civ, that never or at least very rarely happens.

Sure, right now there's a diplomatic penalty for taking someone's capital. But, really, who cares? Maybe a capital should be in resistence for more turns or some other mechanic should take place that would encourage you to give back a player's capital if not going for a Domination Victory. As is, I've never given back another Civ's capital (they often make wonderful production-focused cities), but it seems to me there should be some stronger reasons for doing so.

Food for thought. What do folks think?

 

[BobDole]

If a civ wants their capital so badly, they should fight to keep it or take it back. Putting in some annoying mechanics to encourage a warring civ to give it back sounds like an effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It'd just annoy people to no end, since usually if you go and take a civ's capital, you're probably either A) going for a Domination victory, B) really wanting that capital since capitals are in great locations and tend to have Wonders, or C) the civ pissed you off so much that you decided to go for the kill (i.e., Attila who will DoW you until the end of time no matter how much you've kicked his ass) and you're not giving the capital back anyway.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently: Should there be a mechanic that encourages you to give back a capital to its original owner? Or should the AI request its capital back in peace deals?

Historically, I can't think of too many examples of a war ending where a civilization keeps a capital city as part of its empire (yes, yes, I know people are going to cite Constantinople, ect., I said *many*, not *none*). Captured capitals usually meant the end of the war: concessions were made and the capital is relinquished. But in Civ, that never or at least very rarely happens.

Sure, right now there's a diplomatic penalty for taking someone's capital. But, really, who cares? Maybe a capital should be in resistence for more turns or some other mechanic should take place that would encourage you to give back a player's capital if not going for a Domination Victory. As is, I've never given back another Civ's capital (they often make wonderful production-focused cities), but it seems to me there should be some stronger reasons for doing so.

Food for thought. What do folks think?

The problem is more about that the way trading currently works. There is not conditional trading, like "I'll give back your capital IF you stop fighting AND give me some of the luxuries that are in the capitals' tiles." Currently, you would first have to declare peace and give the capitol and then ask for the luxuries or resources, which a bitter enemy isn't going to give up even if you demand them. (BTW, the current demand feature is useless, the AI never aquiesce to it no matter how badly you could stomp them out of existence)

Also, giving up cities that you just won would feel to many players like they 'lost' the war. Especially since any resources they contain would not be retained by the player upon trading them back and the AI isn't going to give them to you after the initial trade. Also, by that point the AI doesn't often have a ton of cash to give in return for cities if you've taken their capitol.

 

[Harv72b]

Historically, I can't think of too many examples of a war ending where a civilization keeps a capital city as part of its empire (yes, yes, I know people are going to cite Constantinople, ect., I said *many*, not *none*). Captured capitals usually meant the end of the war: concessions were made and the capital is relinquished. But in Civ, that never or at least very rarely happens.

There are numerous examples of this, just not within the past couple decades. From entire empires being wiped out up through Biblical times to the Soviets setting up puppet governments throughout Eastern Europe...heck, even Berlin was divided up among the victors at the end of WWII.

If you want to get all historically accurate then you could tie keeping a capital to specific eras but with it sliding both ways--in ancient times when it was more common the unhappiness penalty be minimal or non-existent, but in modern times capturing the city would come with greatly increased happiness penalties & huge diplomatic hits with other nations (at least, those who weren't allied with you). That would be closer to history but probably far less fun to play.

 

[bcaiko]

Putting in some annoying mechanics to encourage a warring civ to give it back sounds like an effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

This is another one of those history vs. gameplay quandries. I can't help but wonder if there could be a mechanic to make this work, where the victor walks away having gotten something for their trouble, and the loser still keeps his/her capital in defeat.

 

[Mesix]

I don't know about more difficult...but I feel. it should be more rewarding. Each civ should have some special feature (perhaps part of the UA or some minor wonder) which is tied to the capital and rewards the victor, The player is required to keep the capital standing and not raze it to the ground, there should be some upside (and more downside for the civ who lost).

 

[UkraineNotPuny]

I really want something like this.

Oh the days of yore, waaay back in the mists of time in older versions of Civ now only spoken of in hushed tones around camp fires...when you were able to create vassals out of defeated civilizations.

This made a whole lot more historical sense and didn't require you to wipe people off the map...i also liked cities flipping due to culture (which is also much more historically accurate), but i think i might be in a minority on that one.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I really want something like this.

Oh the days of yore, waaay back in the mists of time in older versions of Civ now only spoken of in hushed tones around camp fires...when you were able to create vassals out of defeated civilizations.

This made a whole lot more historical sense and didn't require you to wipe people off the map...i also liked cities flipping due to culture (which is also much more historically accurate), but i think i might be in a minority on that one.

Yeah, you are definitely a minority on that one.

I liked the idea of vassals as well, but the execution of that mechanic was a bit wonky.

 

[bcaiko]

This made a whole lot more historical sense and didn't require you to wipe people off the map...i also liked cities flipping due to culture (which is also much more historically accurate), but i think i might be in a minority on that one.

Is that historically accurate? Culture flipping always brings visions to me of Buffalo, New York joining Canada or something. hahaha. Maybe some historical context would explain to me where that idea came from.

Even as a player who usually goes for Domination Victory, I also long for the game to give players a reason to keep other players alive.

...heck, even Berlin was divided up among the victors at the end of WWII.

And what about Rome? Tokyo? Allies occupied these cities, for sure, but we never even remotes decided they belonged to us. Even your example here isn't apt. Berlin was occupied, yes, but we put it back under German control without Germany having to declare war to retake the city for some reason. Yet that historical tendancy is never (or almost never) reflected in Civ.

A history vs. gameplay problem, but it is jarring.

 

[Sherlock]

I wish I could give a city back for a tremendous diplomacy boost.

Say Attila took Essen from Germany. I fight Attila, take Essen. I'd like to be able to return it to the Germans for a nearly 'friends for life' diplo boost.

I've tried giving back cities to see if there is any benefit. Nope. Zip, zero, nada.

I'm my current game I liberated Warsaw from Harold. Warsaw is my ally now, basically forever. That's how it should be.

It would be nice to do a big war without just 'taking every capital'. You could fight a runaway Civ liberating cities as you go and it would be a great diplomatic victory strategy.

But like I said.... no benefit to liberating AI cities.

 

[UkraineNotPuny]

Is that historically accurate? Culture flipping always brings visions to me of Buffalo, New York joining Canada or something. hahaha. Maybe some historical context would explain to me where that idea came from.

Today's globe is literally the product of many different tribes joining big empries...any time an 'empire' appeared it was from humble beginnings and then grew through bloodshed and other groups joining them under the same banner. The story of this progress is told every time you start up a civ game and read the history of your 'leader'.

The easiest example of culture flipping is Greek city states becoming a semi cohesive unit and then spreading their language and customs throughout the mediterranean..the vikings settling in central europe and establishing the first empires of the slavs...or even good ol' king Kamehameha uniting the islands of the Hawaiian archipelago into a unified kingdom...

 

[Lord Kid]

I wish I could give a city back for a tremendous diplomacy boost.

Say Attila took Essen from Germany. I fight Attila, take Essen. I'd like to be able to return it to the Germans for a nearly 'friends for life' diplo boost.

I've tried giving back cities to see if there is any benefit. Nope. Zip, zero, nada.

I'm my current game I liberated Warsaw from Harold. Warsaw is my ally now, basically forever. That's how it should be.

It would be nice to do a big war without just 'taking every capital'. You could fight a runaway Civ liberating cities as you go and it would be a great diplomatic victory strategy.

But like I said.... no benefit to liberating AI cities.

Couldn't agree more. More often than not, you are labeled warmonger by the very civ you just liberated. The diplomacy fails in CiV are astronomical. I think there should be a mechanic that allows for economic sanctions against rival civs who lose wars. A real world example would be the restriction on Japan's military after WWII, as in they are allowed to have a civil defense force, nothing more. Being able to enforce that on the loser would be great, and liberated civs should, as you say, love you for darn near eternity.

 

[bcaiko]

Couldn't agree more. More often than not, you are labeled warmonger by the very civ you just liberated. The diplomacy fails in CiV are astronomical. I think there should be a mechanic that allows for economic sanctions against rival civs who lose wars. A real world example would be the restriction on Japan's military after WWII, as in they are allowed to have a civil defense force, nothing more. Being able to enforce that on the loser would be great, and liberated civs should, as you say, love you for darn near eternity.

Not sure what you mean by "liberated" here, but if you mean it as in terms of a ressurrected Civ, in the post-G&K game, they will love you forever. The coding issue that caused them to hate you is finally repaired.

 

[Lord Kid]

Not sure what you mean by "liberated" here, but if you mean it as in terms of a ressurrected Civ, in the post-G&K game, they will love you forever. The coding issue that caused them to hate you is finally repaired.

Liberated as in return captured cities and resurrecting them. I haven't done it post GnK because of the hate issue in vanilla, but if that's the case I have more reason to go down my USA World Police role play again, lol!

 

[Buccaneer]

I think this is one of the key ideas in eliminating cheesy wins from the game - allowing captured capitals to be held for X amount of turns (and to program the AI to put even more emphasis on defending and recapturing capitals). They have come a long ways since the initial release but such a change would give a much needed challenge to domination victories.

 

[Lord Kid]

IIRC, in a previous Civ, didn't you run the risk of the captured city reverting back to it's previous owner if you didn't have a unit stationed there to quell the uprising and build something, a police station or courthouse?

 

[Smokeybear]

This is another one of those history vs. gameplay quandries. I can't help but wonder if there could be a mechanic to make this work, where the victor walks away having gotten something for their trouble, and the loser still keeps his/her capital in defeat.

Trying to tie CiV gameplay too closely to historical events or behaviors, is a losing game. I would love to see a much more complex, variable, and interesting game with all sorts of diplomatic and inter-civ options, actions and behaviors not even touched on in CiV, but that isn't how they made this game. It only roughly resembles historical reality, since the only desire of every civ in the game is to win, to beat every other civ, to conquer everyone esle in one way or another. Kinda throws any of the nice-guy options like yours out the window. There is no sense of gratitude anywhere in CiV. Only advantage.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Is that historically accurate? Culture flipping always brings visions to me of Buffalo, New York joining Canada or something. hahaha. Maybe some historical context would explain to me where that idea came from.

Clearly with this example you meant <Random Canadian city> joining the USA.

And what about Rome? Tokyo? Allies occupied these cities, for sure, but we never even remotes decided they belonged to us. Even your example here isn't apt. Berlin was occupied, yes, but we put it back under German control without Germany having to declare war to retake the city for some reason. Yet that historical tendancy is never (or almost never) reflected in Civ.

A history vs. gameplay problem, but it is jarring.

I'd just like to say that WWII and the American occupation of enemy cities that followed was one of the first times in history that one country counquered another and didn't keep it. That's how was fought pretty much always before the Americans decided to be all 'nice' about winning.

But it was a smart strategy - the US is now best friends/genuine allies with formerly bitter enemies.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think this is one of the key ideas in eliminating cheesy wins from the game - allowing captured capitals to be held for X amount of turns (and to program the AI to put even more emphasis on defending and recapturing capitals). They have come a long ways since the initial release but such a change would give a much needed challenge to domination victories.

Or they could bring back the Conquest VC of CIV. Or they could make it like CIII, where you had to conquer every last city on earth to win by conquest. Actually, that sucked, nevermind.

 

[gunslinger6792]

holding on to and capturing a capitol should be harder than it is now. as already stated the possibility of the occupied capitol revolting would be a neat concept.