It's a shame the civ is destroyed in the regicide options

[Alexander's Horse]

I was reading up on this last might - if you kill the king the rest of the civ is destroyed.

Wouldn't it be better if the rest of the civ went over to your side? That would be more fun and could save a lot of time.

[Willem]

I agree. I find that victory condition rather annoying really. In the Middle Ages scenario, I had finally taken out the French, playing as England, when all of a sudden there were swarms of Settlers from the Castillians and Germans trying to grab the land I had fought hard over. I really wasn't in the mood for fighting two nations at once so I just gave up the game, went into the editor, and got rid of that victory type. I was really enjoying myself up to that point too!

[Alexander's Horse]

They could easily option that in a mod - i.e. a kill the king, take the civ option.

Would be useful on large maps.

[vmxa1]

Then it would not be regicide.

[thesilentone]

It would still be regicide, the king would be dead.

But it won't happen in C3 as we know it, far too easily exploitable by the human since the ai rarely (if ever) moves it's king unit from the capital.

[Alexander's Horse]

I dunno, could me historically accurate - Harold dies at Hastings, the Normans take the kingdom, that sort of thing.

[Flip McWho]

It is kinda historically accurate really to get the kingdom after the king is dead. It would also save the brand new land grab thing and reward you for all your hard work in the war.

[Fosse]

If it worked this way I might actually play Regicide!

[Alexander's Horse]

Maybe there's some technical reason they did it like that - I wouldn't mind a view from a Firaxis person.

I actually advocated the regicide option in the lead up to civ 3 but the implementation is a little different from what I hoped.

[lethe]

Well, I think having the kingdom switch to the civ that killed the king would be more beneficial for the AI then for humans, and also remove a tedium from the human.

You can, and probably should, have a settler flood complete with their will be garrisons ready to go. (As this means prolonging the war it can be somewhat difficult in a representative government though.)

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I dunno, could me historically accurate - Harold dies at Hastings, the Normans take the kingdom, that sort of thing.

They still had to go and *take* the kingdom - it was simply relatively easy for them to do it because most of the English army had been killed at Hastings.

In any case, the Norman conquest wouldn't count as one civ conquering another in Civ terms, because William wasn't acting on behalf of the French government - he was a private individual with his own army acting on his own initiative (=barbarians?). After the Conquest, England was not part of the French empire: it just had a king and a new set of aristocrats who happened to be French. In the same way, Britain didn't become part of the Dutch empire in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution and the invasion of William of Orange. At least I hope not! I don't think clogs look very comfortable.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Plotinus
In the same way, Britain didn't become part of the Dutch empire in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution and the invasion of William of Orange. At least I hope not! I don't think clogs look very comfortable.

No, and I'm sure clogs are difficult to fight in....

[MqsTout]

It'd be nice if it set the nation to permanent anarchy. No building or research, but what was there still is. It'd make it easier to take them over in the long run, but it wouldn't be immediate. There'd be no reinforcements, etc.

I ALMOST was going to say 'have it destroy all their units but leave the cities untaken', but then that'd really weigh in the favor of the Spanish and their Conquistador UU!

Locked into anarchy. Imagine losing your king in such a case. It'd be fun to play! Perhaps anarchy should be allowed to build non-upgradable warriors and nothing else in such a case.

[joncnunn]

And how about this for irony:

James Stuart King of Scotland is invited to take the throne in England.
Not only did England NOT become ruled by Scotland, but this lead to Scotland being ruled by England.

Originally posted by Plotinus

They still had to go and *take* the kingdom - it was simply relatively easy for them to do it because most of the English army had been killed at Hastings.

In any case, the Norman conquest wouldn't count as one civ conquering another in Civ terms, because William wasn't acting on behalf of the French government - he was a private individual with his own army acting on his own initiative (=barbarians?). After the Conquest, England was not part of the French empire: it just had a king and a new set of aristocrats who happened to be French. In the same way, Britain didn't become part of the Dutch empire in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution and the invasion of William of Orange. At least I hope not! I don't think clogs look very comfortable.

[Krill]

Off-Topic: England has a knack of being invaded and assimilating the invaders, so they become English. Basicaly every new, major house of the royal family has arrived from a different country, for example, The: Stuats, Hanovorians, even the present monarchys' orriginal name is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Or something similar)

On topic: Yeah, it would be nice that if you killed the king you took the whole civ, but what about at the start? If you take the a civ right at the start, you can double your size. You could easily win the game before the cavalry with a bit of luck.