Tweet
I was reading the post about the dark ages, and I was wondering: Does capturing/razing the enemies capital really do anything but destroy the spaceship? The palace is instantly rebuilt in anouther city, which I think isn't fair, it should have to be rebuilt, and in the meantime, get some crippling corruption. The only reason I see why it gets rebuilt right away is because under most govs, corruption is based on distance to capital, and without one, that could be an issue. Maybe the forbidden palace should change into it if you lose it. But what I want to know is this: What exactly happens when you or an enemy loses their capital? Any negative effects other than it just shifting?
-
They don't call me Springfield Fats because I'm morbidly obese! -
NoUp the Irons!
Rogue CivIII FAQ!
Odysseus and the March of Time
I think holding hands can be more erotic than 'slamming it in the ass' - Pekka, thinking that he's messed up -
You will loose of course all the accumulated culture, which is usually highest in your captital. You will also have changed corruption, depending on where your capital moves, but loosing the city follows the same rules as for normal cities.Comment
-
Well that kind of sucks. In the very least it should throw in into anarchy for a bit, like if you chose to start a revolution. Would be anouther advantage for religious civs, and make things a little realistic.They don't call me Springfield Fats because I'm morbidly obese!Comment
-
That, however would make a Religious civ far too good at war, which is not the aim of that trait.Up the Irons!
Rogue CivIII FAQ!
Odysseus and the March of Time
I think holding hands can be more erotic than 'slamming it in the ass' - Pekka, thinking that he's messed upComment
-
But something defently needs to be done, there should be a reason why to attack the enemies capital (than to attack just some other city)...This space is empty... or is it?Comment
-
You take their capital because it is so close to other cities you have captured from them that you want to reduce the chance of flipping. Also because their original capital is generally the most built up, improvement and culture wise.
It has been recommended that you just cut all the communication lines from it to the outside world to cripple the civ. Of course, if the rest of the world is already at war with them ....Comment
-
Taking a capital could actually, IMPROVE their production, IF the capital jump to a more central location of their empire.
The only real advantage I have found for taking the capital, is that it isn't autorazed.Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!Comment
-
???Originally posted by Tuberski
The only real advantage I have found for taking the capital, is that it isn't autorazed.
???
could you explain this, what am I missing?Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? - EpicurusComment
-
If a city is size 1 with zero culture, you automatically raze it. But if it has 2 or more people, and has culture, you get the choice. The capital has the palace, so it automatically gets culture, therefore you always get a choice.Originally posted by alva848
??? ???
could you explain this, what am I missing?They don't call me Springfield Fats because I'm morbidly obese!Comment
-
AFAIK even a size one capital that has expanded wont be razed either.Originally posted by Palleon
If a city is size 1 with zero culture, you automatically raze it. But if it has 2 or more people, and has culture, you get the choice. The capital has the palace, so it automatically gets culture, therefore you always get a choice.Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!Comment
Comment