misfitpunk
Chieftain
what's the point in taking a capital city if the capital is immediately moved to another city, therefore always giving an enemy civ the benefits of a capital?
the point in taking capital cities.
- Thread starter misfitpunk
- Start date
Capturing a rivalling civs' capital means most often a lot less culture points
each turn for that civ..
Also, capturing an enemies capital means less production for that civ; the capital is usually one of the top producing cities of a civ and I think I don't have to tell you what that means.
So, regardless of the fact that the civ's palace is auto moved to another city you still took away one of their top producing and lots of culture points generating cities.
each turn for that civ..
Also, capturing an enemies capital means less production for that civ; the capital is usually one of the top producing cities of a civ and I think I don't have to tell you what that means.
So, regardless of the fact that the civ's palace is auto moved to another city you still took away one of their top producing and lots of culture points generating cities.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
In addition to this, losing their capital seems to bring AI civs much closer to peace, and willing to give you more concessions for it. Capture the captial a couple times, and they'll give you just about anything for peace.
misfitpunk
Chieftain
thanks to both sulla and sun, your combined replies answered my question really well.
One more. Capturing a capital destroys any spaceship that rival might have been producing.
Just last night, I had to send 6 transports in a last-ditch effort to stop the Indians from launching their mission to Alpha Centauri. I took their capital (and spaceship) out with only 1 part left to be completed. Whew, close one.
I'm now outgunned and will soon be on the defensive. . . but at least the game will continue.
H
Just last night, I had to send 6 transports in a last-ditch effort to stop the Indians from launching their mission to Alpha Centauri. I took their capital (and spaceship) out with only 1 part left to be completed. Whew, close one.
I'm now outgunned and will soon be on the defensive. . . but at least the game will continue.
H
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
After you take the capital, and the next capital, and the one after that, you have indeed eliminated good producing cities. BUT, after a while it does NOT matter. Example:
I had five capital jumps in almost as many turns as I attacked the Aztecs. The capital jumped from town to town. And no, the Aztecs seemed not particularly interested in any peace, accept at a treaty for treaty basis. So they got exterminated.
In Civ 2 attacking the capital was a major strategy - as it should be. In Civ 3 it just happens to be initially in a big city. After that, it hardly matters.
Informer
Chieftain
Yes, indeed, losing a capital should have a stronger impact, even if the capital was evacuated (or moved), this would not happen smoothly, at least a moderate fee should be introduced for realism sake.
When a civ loses a capital (palace), there should be a period of anarchy - normal anarchy with no production, highly susceptible to culture flipping and propaganda, very slow workers, etc. - until a new capital (palace) is built. In order to keep the loss of a capital from being a complete knock-out blow, the period of anarchy should be limited, maybe max of 8 turns. If a civ has a forbidden palace, there would be no anarchy - the forbidden palace would instantly function as a new capital, but there would be no backup. Lose the FP and you're in anarchy, trying to build a capital.
Chingis Khan
Scourge Of The World
What if YOUR capitol was destroyed? I am willing to bet that all your well developed cities are close to your capitol. If your capitol were suddenly moved to a remote area, it would give those surounding cities a boost, but it would take a long while to build up the infrastructure again. Your previous core cities are well developed still, but due to the 99% corruption, you are merely paying a lot of money to support city improvements which no longer benefit you.
If my capitol were destroyed (especially later in the game) it would be a huge blow to my empire. Why would it be different for the AI?
If my capitol were destroyed (especially later in the game) it would be a huge blow to my empire. Why would it be different for the AI?
I for one agree. I liked it the way it was in Civ2 with a big penalty for losing your capital...not only because it is a good strategy (hey! they can do it to you too) but because it is REALISTIC.
I mean fer cryinoutloud!! if you raze a capital or invade and control it, how the hell can the government and all the beaurocracy just get up and whoosh! be transported instantly to another location and set up shop and continue to manage the empire of the civ?!?
its a bit looney!
I mean fer cryinoutloud!! if you raze a capital or invade and control it, how the hell can the government and all the beaurocracy just get up and whoosh! be transported instantly to another location and set up shop and continue to manage the empire of the civ?!?
its a bit looney!
SauronMaiar
Patrician
No one likes Communism here ?
bobgote
Trousers
good point. Communism could actually prove useful
( I know it can be, shut up )I have mentioned stuff about capitals in another thread, but i think this one is very much more suited. I don't know how Civ2 was, but I played Civ1 a lot. When your capital is taken, corruption is a lot more, at least 1/2 even in the cities closest to where your capital was. This lasted until you could build a new capital. I think this was a good system and is also more realistic.
SauronMaiar
Patrician
I meant in the game, oaf. You could place your Palace in an impossible location, and it wouldn't matter. Only regarding your trade network.
