One City Challenge?

[gdijedi7]

Greetings!

So to win the game, you only have to hold all the capitals.

When they were being shown a Civ5 demo, Rome nabbed the Aztec capital, and Monty surrendered.

Does this mean that all you have to do to take over a nation is to nab their capital? I would dislike this immensely.


When Napoleon captured Moscow, Russia didn't capitulate. They actually trounced the French fairly well.

When the British captured Philadelphia, the Continental Congress simply went somewhere else.

When the British captured Washington and burned the White House, America kept fighting.

When the Texans captured Santa Fe, the New Mexican Territorial government (Not quite the same level, I know) moved to Las Vegas (NM, not Nevada) and the Union troops kept fighting.


But now in Civ 5, it appears you can lose the game from losing a single city?

[Donegeal]

I believe that what they mean about winning is that you win the game if you capture all the other civs capital cities, not that they civs will surrender if you do.

[DRoseDARs]

I believe you're confusing terms here: The One City Challenge (OCC) is when the Human player builds one and only one city for the course of an entire game.

As Don mentioned, you must capture and hold ALL of the enemy capitals to win under that particular victory condition, though I wonder if (hope, really) this is a separate, simplified conquest victory from the standard conquer-all-cities conquest victory. I just completed a game in C3C on Pangea Ultima map (Earth's continents are predicted to drift back together in about 200 million years, swallowing the Atlantic Ocean) and spent a great deal of time conquering several hundred cities from 12 different civilizations. After all the time and energy I put into this war (130+ hours over several weeks), it was quite satisfying to see the last declared enemy city fall. Three more civs remain but they're all equal tech to me so I've maintained peace with them. I'll be moving to finish them off after I've built up previous conquered areas. And I'll be doing it with nukes.

If they've changed this equation, are forcing us into a dumbed-down conquest victory condition instead of making it another option, I'm going to be very unhappy.

[ColdPhoenix]

I believe that what they mean about winning is that you win the game if you capture all the other civs capital cities, not that they civs will surrender if you do.

This is my understanding. I'd say it's also very likely that there'll be an option in custom games to switch to the old capture all cities condition if that's what you prefer.

[MxM]

I just completed a game in C3C on Pangea Ultima map (Earth's continents are predicted to drift back together in about 200 million years, swallowing the Atlantic Ocean) and spent a great deal of time conquering several hundred cities from 12 different civilizations. After all the time and energy I put into this war (130+ hours over several weeks), it was quite satisfying to see the last declared enemy city fall.

This, by the way, shows, how much different players differer in preferences. I personally dread the game like this. It is way too boring and the same for me. It is amazing for me to see that there are people who enjoy it.

That shows how important to have flexibility of the game setup in Civ V.

[DRoseDARs]

To be clear, I hate long slogs like that as well, but it's a rare delight to be able to crush so many players whom are nearly as advanced as me (with three remaining who are equal and will soon enough glow in the dark). I was making nice with everyone else, but the Inca just didn't like me. It started with them, they dragged the Arabs and Mongols in and it was downhill from there. I sued for peace with the Chinese since by the time I reached their borders they had bombers and I didn't much want to deal with that. The Carthaginians and Byzantines hadn't joined the fray because they were on a separate continent (Antarctica and Australia mushed together) and have only ever managed to be annoyed with me because I razed about 6 cities (What? They were in the way.) in the early years of the war.

Years ago I was shocked and delighted... mostly shocked... when during a Civ3 game on a pangea with 16 players, I GOT NUKED. Not once, but about 6-7 times. I wasn't even close to being one of the top dogs, and I got frickin' NUKED! After so many hours lost to playing Civ and Civ II and finally Civ3, I had never been nuked before. It was glorious. And infuriating. I couldn't do much at that point, but I did some damage in retaliation before retiring from that game.

I can't find my Civ4 disk, hence my playing C3C.

[campm@jor]

I got nuked a lot, especially in civ2. I personally don't like nukes. I'm too much a builder to see all that work go to waste...

But it can be fun such a game, if the odds are against you, and still you win. I once had a game where the Russians were going to destroy me, and they took city by city. I then discovered nationalism and drafted the hell out of my cities. I then held my ground and later on I destroyed them. I was happy for weeks! :-)