Taking enemy capitals

[Solo4114]

There's absolutely a logistical consideration when striking deep into enemy territory to take a capital. There's also the issue that, depending on how many civs you play against, said capital may not only be deep in enemy territory, but also surrounded by territory that isn't yours (but isn't the enemy's territory). The result can be that taking the capital simply gets you a good city but one that you can't develop effectively, due to your neighbors' culture bubbles keeping you penned in. So, despite the great positioning, you can't take advantage of it because of the neighboring culture.

I was playing on the Earth 18 Civs map recently and, as the British, took Paris. Major blow to Louis, and gave me some nice resources, but Izzie to the south is pressing her culture on me with Madrid, and Freidrich to the northeast has Berlin (and other cities) pushing the cultural boundaries back so that, even though a square is only 36% German, I still can't use it yet. The real pisser of all of this is that there's some really nice resources there, but I can't get access to 'em.

 

[bonafide11]

I like them to make my GP farm.

Yeah, I usually do this too. I always build cottages in my capital to get some early commerce going, but I want a city in a good location with a lot of food to turn into my GP farm. I usually try to take a nearby capital for this purpose.

 

[johncross21]

I like taking capitals because they contain a huge stack of defenders - my catapults chew them up - whereas taking smaller cities more lightly defended gives your cats a smaller target

second you deprive the enemy of a huge resource (especially if it contains wonders)

 

[commofdoom]

the capital can generally turn out units the quickest, and unless your fighting warriors with tanks fighting more units is a bad idea.

 

[Ultimate_Waffle]

The Ninja, I have a ninjish question for you... How do you suppress vestibular, or equilibrial abnormalities during a kill, so that aerial acrobatic maneuvers don't cause you to fall victim to yourself?

 

[itsnotmeee]

the capital can generally turn out units the quickest, and unless your fighting warriors with tanks fighting more units is a bad idea.

Not if you have those loyal, dedicated catapults

 

[futurehermit]

All you need to know about why you take an enemy capital is summed up by watching a wolf or other predator take down a gazelle or other prey. Once you hamstring (i.e., cripple) your prey, you can devour it at your leisure...

 

[Lord Chambers]

Based on the ALC and Immortal Challenges I've read recently, I think the players are too single-minded about getting a capital. It's a better military decision to keep your enemy on one side because it allows you to focus your military forces. The amount of production you deny your opponent by hitting core cities first is attenuated by the fact that you're probably splitting your own forces to cover a larger flank.

I think it's an absurd notion to claim that capturing the enemy capital secures your victory, as if taking closer cities first jeopardizes it. No player fights a war they can't win. It's just a matter of how quickly and with how many losses.

This isn't to say I save a capital for last, I'm just saying the production capability of a city isn't as signifigant a concern as it's geographic locations. The order you take cities should be that which minimizes your exposure and keeps your military forces concentrated. If I divert from that rule, it's to get good cities before a capitulation or deny strategic resources.

 

[CivSetä]

^^^^
IMHO it's not single-minded at all. Usually you go for capital only when executing early rush, and you should be able to capture capital within 2-3 turns. There might be a city between the capitals, but it is usually able to send one pillagers, which definitely is not a problem. And your reinforcement can easily take that minor city while your main stack advances to other cities.

As I mentioned earlier, later it is less important to which city attack first.

 

[futurehermit]

Based on the ALC and Immortal Challenges I've read recently, I think the players are too single-minded about getting a capital. It's a better military decision to keep your enemy on one side because it allows you to focus your military forces. The amount of production you deny your opponent by hitting core cities first is attenuated by the fact that you're probably splitting your own forces to cover a larger flank.

I think it's an absurd notion to claim that capturing the enemy capital secures your victory, as if taking closer cities first jeopardizes it. No player fights a war they can't win. It's just a matter of how quickly and with how many losses.

This isn't to say I save a capital for last, I'm just saying the production capability of a city isn't as signifigant a concern as it's geographic locations. The order you take cities should be that which minimizes your exposure and keeps your military forces concentrated. If I divert from that rule, it's to get good cities before a capitulation or deny strategic resources.

Taking an enemy capital is 95% of the time the best plan, followed by their other large cities. Large cities = greater potential to whip, draft, and build units. Less units = easier win for you. It's easy to mop up fringe cities after. Why let the AI build a bunch more units while you take out their insignificant cities first?

Furthermore, you shouldn't have to split your forces. Be quick and efficient. Plan the shortest distance to their capital before declaring. If they do send a stack at your empire (rare) then whip units to defend while you take out their lightly-defended empire...

 

[Jerrymander]

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?

Religion produces culture. Duh.

 

[JackOfClubs]

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...

Sometimes, but not usually. The issue isn't "close" or "far" it's how many squares away. Being 2 squares away from the coast is acceptable since your fat cross will not overlap any coastal tiles. Being on the coast is also good since you can build lighthouses, workboats, etc. and take advantage of the coastal tiles that are in your fat cross. But being 1 square away you will have some overlap, but will not be able to build a lighthouse, so all those coastal tiles are a net loss of food and you can only take advantage of seafood resources if some other coastal city creates the workboat.

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?

The capital has the palace which produces culture, happiness and commerce. When you take the city, the palace transfers to some other enemy city, so it won't be there for you to look at. Even if Alex didn't build any culture producing buildings, (which, as mentioned, are always destroyed) this would be the case.

 

[Naismith]

Based on the ALC and Immortal Challenges I've read recently, I think the players are too single-minded about getting a capital. It's a better military decision to keep your enemy on one side because it allows you to focus your military forces. The amount of production you deny your opponent by hitting core cities first is attenuated by the fact that you're probably splitting your own forces to cover a larger flank.

I think it's an absurd notion to claim that capturing the enemy capital secures your victory, as if taking closer cities first jeopardizes it. No player fights a war they can't win. It's just a matter of how quickly and with how many losses.

This isn't to say I save a capital for last, I'm just saying the production capability of a city isn't as signifigant a concern as it's geographic locations. The order you take cities should be that which minimizes your exposure and keeps your military forces concentrated. If I divert from that rule, it's to get good cities before a capitulation or deny strategic resources.

I don't know about ALC and Immortal Challenges, but I have to agree with the rest of it. There's probably more reason in the early game to try and go straight to the capital. But I hate taking any city and being engulfed by enemy culture. What's the point? You will have to take or raze the surrounding cities anyway. It's much easier to take or raze them in order, keeping your forces concentrated and mobile (i.e. not surrounded by enemy culture on all sides).

Mobility is especially crucial if there is any possiblity that some other Civ will declare war on you. If the majority of your military is deep in enemy territory, engulfed by enemy culture, it will take forever to respond to the new threat. That's one of the reasons I try to include workers in my attacking force, to build roads as my stack progresses.

 

[ABigCivFan]

On higher levels, you might lose your entire invasion army when you travel deep into enemy territory for the capital since the AIs will pound you with piles of siege. Even if you take the capital, you will lose it fast without immediate reinforcements.

So going straight for the capital deep in enemy territory is only for very low levels (probably below Noble) when you have armies 3 times larger than AI's And if you need that pyrimid right away.

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.

Prior to large invasion try convert enermy cities to your religion, it takes longer term planning, but it will give you invaluable info(almost like free spies everywhere) after the invasion starts.

 

[LordRahl]

As mentioned before - going straight for the capitals on higher levels is plain stupid. I used to do it myself, but only because I thought taking the capital has the same effect as it used to in Civ1 and Civ2 - the player with no capital could not collect any taxes - so no income, or research, until they built a new palace. In Civ4 you get no such bonus. I actually almost lost a game because of going for the capital with a huge army, only to have them pull the Alamo sh&t later on after the capture.

As briliantly stated by another poster - you should eat at your enemy piece by piece, so that your front is as small as possible, and you can concentrate your forces in one spot. Throwing your army in the middle of enemy territory is a suicide mission. You're denying your troops quick reinforcements, and end up with a zero culture city that's just waiting to flip...

 

[Murky]

Their capitial is usually the city with the most buildings, wonders and improvements. It's the biggest net gain for you and a huge loss for them.

 

[futurehermit]

On higher levels, you might lose your entire invasion army when you travel deep into enemy territory for the capital since the AIs will pound you with piles of siege. Even if you take the capital, you will lose it fast without immediate reinforcements.

So going straight for the capital deep in enemy territory is only for very low levels (probably below Noble) when you have armies 3 times larger than AI's And if you need that pyrimid right away.

I think the best way is choose the "shortest path to capital" approach, capture all enermy cities along the way to its capital, fortify/heal, then go again. It is a lot easier.

Prior to large invasion try convert enermy cities to your religion, it takes longer term planning, but it will give you invaluable info(almost like free spies everywhere) after the invasion starts.

I would say this is fairly rare. In most of my games, even later in the game, I can usually get a pretty direct route to the capital. I may have to bypass a city or two, but that's no big deal. If they pound me with siege, whatever. I have a mixed army and I bring along a medic-three, so my units heal while I am tearing down the cultural defenses of the capital. Suicide some siege, mop up, and away you go. With the capital sunk, it's only a matter of time before you mop up their fringe cities.

The alternative is you take the 1-2 cities along the way to the capital. During the turns while you are taking the cities: 1) You are losing units taking the cities; and 2) The AI is building/whipping more units in its capital quickly, which means that you may be unable to take the capital once you get there.

If you go for the capital first you can take those 2-3 cities with less troops than if you go for the fringe cities first. This is because it takes longer for the AI to build/whip troops in the underdeveloped, fringe cities meaning the AI will have less units overall.

 

[Ecofarm]

When it becomes apparent that you have sufficient units to accomplish the goals of the war (total elimination of the enemy, capitulation, etc) - switch to caste system and run max artists in either your highest GPP city or another if you want that city to make it's intended GP or a city that needs some culture of its own. If you use a city with GPP already, you might get that GP super early and have to wait for the artist to pop next. Drop a culture bomb in your shiny new city and enjoy the fruits of a fully functioning 10 pop without troublesome culture or revolt time.

 

[obsolete]

If im using QUICK turn mode, then my captured cities won't be in anarchy for long anyhow. I think it may be a waste of a GP then.

 

[Ecofarm]

I play on quick gamespeed alot, and cities are still in anarchy for about 8 turns, at least, when I capture a big one like a capital. Let's look at what the GP brings you:

1. Cultural superiority for many tiles. This allows you to work many good tiles, (eliminating starvation and providing significant hammer + commerce production). It also means that any attempt to retake the city will be moving very slowly (in enemy territory).

2. Additional production. A city of 8-10 population produces how many hammers and commerce per turn, multiply by number of turns the city would have been in revolt. Typically, this accounts for 50+ hammers and 50+ commerce over the course of what would be revolt. Add to that whipping, specialists, or any other fancy stuff and quite alot is produced in a mere 8 turns. If, for example, you had 8 cities, this is similar in affect to avoiding a turn of anarchy empire-wide.

3. Land = power.

4. Leftover satallite cities of your target will find themselves crushed by culture, unable to produce, and unable to quickly reinforce each other.

5. Other civs lingering in the area (with a settler and a couple archers) will be unable to settle annoying new border cities because they cannot settle in someone else's culture. Perventing the appearence of 1, 2, or even 3 new border cities in open culture tiles 2 away from your new city is almost enough benefit in itself.