Capture of capital triggers civil war/revolution, twice signals surrender

[Alexander's Horse]

I would like to see more civil war in Civ III. If you conquered a civ's capital twice the civ should surrender (i.e. after you take the city the capital shifts to).

Multiplayers should also have a surrender option and/or an option to merge their civ with another. At the moment if say I'm losing I can't give all my cities including my capital to an ally. It would also be good if you could carve out another civ from your own and give it to another player! (say a hot joiner)

What do you think? Empires collapsing rapidly is something missing from civ II.

Maybe loss of wonders could also have nasty catastrophic effects, especially religious/happy wonders.

[TechWins]

I would like to see more civil war in Civ III. If you conquered a civ's capital twice the civ should surrender (i.e. after you take the city the capital shifts to).

So you're saying if somebody came here to the states and took over Washington DC that we should just surrender because there's no reason to fight for our freedom anymore. I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.

Multiplayers should also have a surrender option

As well as for the SP too. I only like this idea if you're referring to the fact of surrendering a city, for having the other civ stop the war. I don't like it if you're talking about surrendering your whole civ. Why would somebody want to surrender there whole civ, it's just a game?

an option to merge their civ with another.

People could get way too powerful. I don't like it at all.

Empires collapsing rapidly is something missing from civ II.

Maybe once in awhile but not all the time. Too much work and not enough fun.

Maybe loss of wonders could also have nasty catastrophic effects, especially religious/happy wonders.

Don't they already?

[Paul L]

I would like to see more civil war in Civ III. If you conquered a civ's capital twice the civ should surrender (i.e. after you take the city the capital shifts to).

So now we have only to conquer two cities per civ. Well that makes the endgame shorter, I guess.

[Alexander's Horse]

Its more historically accurate

Capture Paris and France falls, capture London and Britain falls. That's the reality.

[Chronus]

"Capture Paris and France falls, capture London and Britain falls. That's the reality."

Hmmmm . . . Washington D.C. was captured and the U.S. DID NOT fall (War of 1812).

I agree with the earlier statement. This concept reduces the destruction of a civilization down to capturing two cities.

[Alexander's Horse]

Civ is so US centric

I really wish some of you would think this through. It would not mean 2 city conquest. Firstly you would have to fight to get to someone's capital. This would normally involve taking more cities than the capital itself or at least defeating their army and/or navy in the field first. Then you would have fight to wherever the capital moved. If they didn't build a second capital you couldn't take it - but that would cost your opponent hugely in lost production and trade.

Cases where it would be "only" a case of taking 2 cities would be the exception rather than the rule. Everyone would stack up their capital with defenders - just like they do in real civs.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TechWins
So you're saying if somebody came here to the states and took over Washington DC that we should just surrender because there's no reason to fight for our freedom anymore. I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.
Don't they already?

nah, neither do i.
only a massive tax raise can trigger a collapse of the us.

[Urban Ranger]

Napoleon took Moscow yet Russia didn't fall. the IJA took the Chinese capital but China didn't collapse.

I don't see what the justification of your suggestion is, Horse.

[Grumbold]

The loss of the capital is a huge blow to prestige but it certainly should not cause any automatic actions. The countries that surrender typically do so because they have no prospect of getting an army together and continuing to fight. They don't always wait for their capital to fall before doing so and a few years later they rebel and return to independence. Napoleon spent most of his military career conquering and reconquering Europe. Civ would need a whole new way of handling warfare to make this plausible. If it were possible to surrender, lose 1/4 production or gold to your enemy but then continue playing until you declare revolt then it could be a very interesting new aspect of gameplay.

[Urban Ranger]

I reckon it would be how concentrated a country's assets are. If losing the capital means losing 50% or more of production, it could trigger a surrender. If, on the other hand, it's not more than losing a big city, there shouldn't be any automatic reaction.

[Earwicker]

I think Civ3 should have Surrender, much as we see in SMAC, but not tied directly to the loss of capital cities. Instead, a civilization's surrender should depend its remaining strength relative to that of the invader. It should consider deployment of forces (how many are poised to take the next couple largest cities), ideology, history, etc.

Historically, surrender is an often-exercised option in warfare. Not every conflict has been setted with an equal peace or left to run to a fight to the last man. Civ2 always struck me as strange in that regard. If I'm invading the Babylonians and have overtaken 3/4 of their cities, my diplomatic choices were to stop fighting for little incentive (100 gold) or keep going and take them out entirely. Stopping the fight holds no promise that they won't sneak attack again, once my forces are deployed elsewhere.

[jake03]

One thing I think is missing, or atleast I have not seen it, Natural desasters should be a part of the mix, hurricance's earthquakes valcanoes. That would really make the game interesting having to compensate to these things with troop movments and building. It would really put a new spin on stratigie for instance you would not want to build a great wonder on a vacanic Island and invading countries on the warm climate may be postponed by weather.

[SerapisIV]

I like the idea. There should be some kind of mechanism through which a civilization is able to collapse and break into civil war. I think that capital capture is a great reason to have such an event occur.

With all these examples of the US, think older civs, say before nationalism. Before there was nationalism, did a city halfway across a nation care what happened in the capital? Until nationalism, nations really are mini-city-states like they're modeled in civ. So a capital capture would be a strong reason for half a civ to revolt. In modern nations, sure I agree that it would be much harder to breakup countries, but the US is an anomoly in the world, it was created by people wanting to come here and immigrating. Look at the former Soviet Union, it was a nation gained by conquest, there's ethnic wars all over over the Caucaus mountains.

I think it is here where culture will be great for Civ3. Say the Greeks beat up the Zulus and have captured a few cities. But the Greeks lose their capital to the invading Indians (that war-monger Gandhi), perfect excuse for the captured Zulu cities to revolt, and the Greeks split in Civil War.

[TechWins]

I really wish some of you would think this through. It would not mean 2 city conquest. Firstly you would have to fight to get to someone's capital. This would normally involve taking more cities than the capital itself or at least defeating their army and/or navy in the field first. Then you would have fight to wherever the capital moved.

It's too easy to just take over a capital. Nuke the city and if you can't get troops in that city without attacking just do a paradrop. I find war too easy in Civ2 this would only make war even easier in Civ3. I'm looking for a little bit more of a challenge in war not a way to take over the world even faster.

[Dr Strangelove]

How about having a surrender if the capital falls AND a certain percentage of the cities suffer enough morale loss that they revolt?