Taking enemy capitals

[obsolete]

Why is it people make taking an enemy capital such a priority? I understand if it is near by, but people tend to plow very deep just to take a capital. Despite there are two close cities near your own capital that would be much easier to take and maintain, without culture problems, etc.

Is there some sort of bonus for taking a capital? The greater the distance the more corruption etc, unless there are some added bonuses. Which leads me to wonder, if I capture a city that had a forbidden palace, would there be any sort of benefit here to the player capturing it? Besides the obvious fact that the AI no longer has it.

I usually try to take the cities one by one and work my way up to the enemy capitals.

 

[itsnotmeee]

Why is it people make taking an enemy capital such a priority? I understand if it is near by, but people tend to plow very deep just to take a capital. Despite there are two close cities near your own capital that would be much easier to take and maintain, without culture problems, etc.

Is there some sort of bonus for taking a capital? The greater the distance the more corruption etc, unless there are some added bonuses. Which leads me to wonder, if I capture a city that had a forbidden palace, would there be any sort of benefit here to the player capturing it? Besides the obvious fact that the AI no longer has it.

I usually try to take the cities one by one and work my way up to the enemy capitals.

A capital is usually located in an ideal site. Taking it would be a big plus and a big blow to your enemy's economy.

 

[obsolete]

The AI seems so stupid that it builds its capitals often 1 square away from the shore. Anyhow, you take it, and it automatically moves the capital bonus to another location, so you aren't really taking its capital anyhow.

Though I didn't really notice in the past of capitals starting in real ideal locations. I'll try and pay more attention to it. I know I hardly ever get the resources I want/need in my own starting locations.

 

[itsnotmeee]

The AI seems so stupid that it builds its capitals often 1 square away from the shore. Anyhow, you take it, and it automatically moves the capital bonus to another location, so you aren't really taking its capital anyhow.

Though I didn't really notice in the past of capitals starting in real ideal locations. I'll try and pay more attention to it. I know I hardly ever get the resources I want/need in my own starting locations.

You are taking something. Given the fact that the capital is perhaps the most developed, you can slow down your enemy if you capture it.

 

[Maydrock]

I like them to make my GP farm.

 

[JoeBlade]

The AI seems so stupid that it builds its capitals often 1 square away from the shore. Anyhow, you take it, and it automatically moves the capital bonus to another location, so you aren't really taking its capital anyhow.

Though I didn't really notice in the past of capitals starting in real ideal locations. I'll try and pay more attention to it. I know I hardly ever get the resources I want/need in my own starting locations.

I quite agree with you actually. I find that gunning for capitals is often more trouble than it's worth.
For one, they tend to be overly defended. AI's are (too) fond of settling on hills as well. Add to that additional culture in the capital and the troops required for capturing a capital is often sufficient to overthrow two, if not three other cities.

When a capital is very close to yours (= low maintenance cost) and easily accessible it is probably worth the effort but otherwise I tend to leave capitals alone until I can construct catapults and preferably have discovered code of laws too.

As for crippling your opponent: capturing several cities and pillaging the remaining ones is more than sufficient to take any civ out of the equation. Two pairs of axes + spears or several chariots can mostly plunder at their leisure thus disabling the opponent just as much, and much quicker as well for the most part.

 

[oyzar]

it might sometimes be the right thing to have cities 1 square off from the sea... it doesnt do that much to be close to the sea anyways...

 

[Snovvdog]

It's usually a perfect city site, and a good city overall with wonders and such, massive blow to enemy economy for taking their most develloped city...

Enemy cities near you usually are rubbish cities with not enough resources near, I just tend to raze them as they are not worth the maintanance costs...

 

[DutchJob]

I like them to make my GP farm.

indeed. liberate two extra capitals and you'll need to be like george w. bush if you wanna loose...

 

[Sjaramei]

The capital usually has the most culture of all the enemy cities, taking it blows a huge chunk of enemy cultural sphere and makes taking the rest easier.

That and of course the ideal city spot as mentioned earlier.

 

[obsolete]

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?

And to make things worse, it was NOT an ideal location. I had trouble getting it above a population of 8 for the whole game.

Boy, had I gone all over half the world to take that city I would have been VERY pissed.

 

[CivSetä]

Main reason why I always go first after capital is simple - it is always best city productionwise and it has best defences also. And AI really loves to whip some extra defenders, so later there is more to kill. IMHO it is wiser to face 3-4 archers with 40% cultural defence first, than take other cities first and face 6+ archers then. And after capital hass fallen, AI can't recover. Other cities don't have enough production, and you can pick them easily one by one. So always capital first in ancient/classical wars, even if you are going to raze it. Later eras it does not matter.

 

[JujuLautre]

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?

Don't forget that when you take a city, some of the buildings (sometimes every one of them) are destroyed. I think this is what just happened.

Also, the capitol situated in the capital produces culture, from the start of the game; and it's automatically re-allocated if you take the city.

 

[obsolete]

I remember this from Civ III, I guess it carries over to Civ IV, would be nice if there was a calculation somewhere on this. I guess there is.

I'll continue more experimentation. I had assumed that perhaps alexander being a warmonger, just didn't plan on building anything and that is why I got absolutely nothing. But not even a barracks was present?

 

[JujuLautre]

If I'm correct, each building has a chance of curviving in this kind of situation. Perhaps the exact mecanism is given somewhere in the forums, but I'm not sure. At least, this is the case for nuking.

 

[r_rolo1]

Alright, my last monarch game... Alaxander has his capital just 2 empty squares away from my own capital! I ended up taking it much sooner than I normaly would a capital. However, there was .... NOTHING in it! Not even a stupid obelisk! And to top that off... it was a holy city! AT least I could have gotten some sort of temple???? How the hell, does a capital city of the AI make so much culture when there is NOTHING even in it producing culture?

And to make things worse, it was NOT an ideal location. I had trouble getting it above a population of 8 for the whole game.

Boy, had I gone all over half the world to take that city I would have been VERY pissed.

Culture building are ALWAYS razed when you conquer a city, and captured wonders don't produce culture until given back to their buiders.

 

[Winston Hughes]

it doesnt do that much to be close to the sea

It was that kind of thinking which, on a recent isolated start, caused me to build no coastal cities whatsoever. I only noticed after I beelined Optics and couldn't build any caravels.

 

[automator]

Why I take capitols:

1. Generally uniquely situated for large growth with good production or commerce potential.

2. Enemy has spend more time developing this city than any other, it's a BURN.

3. If the civ in question has built the Pyramids, they're likely to be in the capitol: Hello Police State!

4. Take the capitol and you get rid of that culture bubble pressing on your other recent acquisitions.

 

[silver 2039]

Losing a capital can be quite crippiling. I've lost my capital before it was my largest and most productive city and it contained resources like horses, copper, and iron, and it badly crippled my war effort, fourtnatley I managed to take it back, but the damage was already done and that was all I could do before I had to make peace.

 

[The Ninja]

Why I take capitols:
1: I'm a ninja!
2: I'm a ninja!
3: I'm a ninja!
4: I'm a ninja!



5: I feel that it demoralizes the enemy. I know it doesn't really, but it still makes me feel good.

The Ninja