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

[Feyd]

This is a bit impractical (all those buildings are destroyed?), but there's not much that can be done from the programming angle I think because, unlike Civ2, barbarian's can't have cities. Code that in and you'd have an interesting game even after the king dies.

My advice is to turn on the "restart dead players" option because it give the player another King unit (the Heir) in another town.

Anyway, I just play with it now. It actually was a good thing on the Sengoku Conquest because it cleared up land I was wanting to expand into rather quickly and I didn't have to worry about fighting time after time and dealing with the crappy AI placements if I captured a city.

Peace,

Feyd

[Kuciwalker]

I hate that there's always at least on city that I can't take because the city is destroyed before the unit that killed the King unit takes the city

[Jarred]

How about regicide is kill all units and production, leave cities intact for whoever can grab them?

[Shogun Gunner]

I think the earlier idea of anarchy allowing no production, hence no new units, is a good idea. The defeated country offers limited, leaderless resistance.

The cities are intact for capture. I also don't like the idea that cities crumble into dust because the King dies....

[bongo]

Anyone remember the civil wars in civ2? If you took the capitol of the strongest civ, his empire split in half. If you got half their empire when you killed the king and the rest just become barbarians or disappeared or whatever.

[vmxa1]

Yuk. I never liked that feature.

[Shogun Gunner]

Actually I liked the civil war feature -- it was a pretty rare occurance. It really doesn't make to much sense from a historical perspective...but that's OT.

[bongo]

It was fun, it allowed you to catch up on those über-AIs on the higher levels.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I think the earlier idea of anarchy allowing no production, hence no new units, is a good idea. The defeated country offers limited, leaderless resistance.

The cities are intact for capture. I also don't like the idea that cities crumble into dust because the King dies....

I second that idea . Perhaps as an addition, disallow the civ to engage in any diplomacy (who's sending the diplomats? obviously not the leader ), and, while not making it at war with every civ, any civ can attack it without worrying about repercussions (trade-wise, anyways), and all other trade deals are cut off (ie, mpp, lux, etc).

[hexagonian]

It's basically a multiplay feature to streamline gameplay.

For single play, play regicide with the provision that the capital is one of the last city taken...

[binyo66]

Originally posted by Jarred
How about regicide is kill all units and production, leave cities intact for whoever can grab them?

IMO, its not a good idea, most likely human will get the most. Before killing the game, just place a unit next to every city.

[player1]

What I would really like is that civ, which loses a king, goes into 20 turns anarchy, with half units in garriosns and all units on open disbanded.

[binyo66]

That's a good idea. In addition, that civs become barbarians (anyway they dont have leader),n they keep current technology, but slowly advance.