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

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TechWins


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.

If you are in that situation you are going to win anyway. Its part of my point - why should you have to conquer every itty bitty city to destroy a civ?

[TechWins]

If you are in that situation you are going to win anyway. Its part of my point - why should you have to conquer every itty bitty city to destroy a civ?

You should have to take over all the cities because empires don't just fall over and die if there capital gets taken over Plus if your capital or the AI's does get taken over for another reason that doesn't mean you or the AI absolutely have no chance of winning. Maybe you or the AI makes a bad move accidentally so your capital or the AI's gets taken over for the second time. You have no chance of going back and making up for that mistake, because guess what you or the AI's game is over. We also know how many times the AI makes a bad move. Another reason is, let's say you (the English) and the French are the top two countires. The Zulus are very weak but do have a lot of cities. You easily go take over the Zulus's capital twice with only loosing one unit, spending very little time, and spend very little money. . Now you have saved yourself a lot of time for conquering the rest of the world, money, and units by not having to take over all the of Zulus's cities. In taking over the Zulus you are so far ahead of the French now but if you would have had to exert more time, money, and units into the war against the Zulus you would have given the French a better chance. Having you model would just make it way too easy to conquer the whole world not just the civ you're attacking.

[Alexander's Horse]

He's back for another slap

Well we've already established on the bribery thread that you have hardly ever played so we'll note your views and give them the weight they deserve

[TechWins]

played so we'll note your views and give them the weight they deserve

Oh yeah I agree more arguements are nothing compared to yours. I mean you have had one or two line arguements while I only have about 17 lines in my arguement. Another reason why your arguements are better is, you also have to think about the fact that your arguements are lame and TRYING to be insulting. So yes I don't know what I'm talking about, only the 1-2 line only King (Alexander's A Jackass) knows what he talking about.

[Alexander's Horse]

Its important to be concise

What you say in 17 lines, I can say in 1 or 2

Brevity is the soul of wit



Can we get back to the TOPIC please.

[TechWins]

What you say in 17 lines, I can say in 1 or 2

You really don't know what you're even talking about do you?

Can we get back to the TOPIC please.

I doubt you remeber because of your stupidity you're the one who got off subject. If you have anything important to say say it if not keep you mouth shout.

[KrazyHorse]

Boys, boys, boys....Hey! Watch where you're aiming that thunderbolt, AH.

[C. Gerhardt]

Oh, sorry.

I fell asleep reading your last STUPID replies, aspec. TechWings.

Does the side really matter or the contence?

Lets see, .... , .... , o yea, capital takeovers.

I don't like the of surrender after loosing your capital twice. This means that if you have a civ of 25 cities, mostly 15+, and you will loose your capital for the second time (still confused about the fact someone will capture its first?!?!) you loose the game. No chances of retaliation of some kind, rebels, resistance groups, just plain DEAD?

Fortunatly i live in a country where the government doesnt seat in its capital. Littlebit harder to demand surrender from a major.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
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.

I dont like it then it comes to AI-civs. However; Im all for adding optional "surrender house-rules" then it comes to MP-games.

If the capitol city have been conquered twice and half (or more) of the population is under conquered rule, then (and only then) a popup-message informs the loosing MP-player that he now have the free option to handover the remaining rest of his shattered empire (= unconditional surrendor). However, as long as the loosing MP-player have cities still left under his control - he can choose to ignore this surrender-option, and continue fighting instead. Its a free choice.

Above MP-surrender-to-MP option should ONLY be available after above strict conditions have been meet. If the MP-player wants to quit regardless above conditions; the AI takes over command.

Just an idea: Should the loosing MP-player also be able to surrendor to another MP-player of his choice - other then then the one who threatens to squash him?

The reason I dont want this feature in the main-game fighting against AI-civs, is that the human player can exploit this option much easier then the AI-civ can. It should be an MP-option only.

[JoeK]

I just thought about something about capturing capitals. I think there's a difference between capturing the capital with the leaders in it and without the leaders in it.

Am I correct in saying that most times in history, when the capital was captured and the country didn't collapse, this is because the leaders had already left the capital. This would be the equivalent of moving your capital in Civ. In real life, when you see the enemy heading towards you, you get your leaders to saftey.

But if the capital was captured suddenly (surprise attack, etc) and the leaders would captured, then things would be different. (What has happened historically when leaders were captured in their capital? All I can think of is Germany in WWII, and the Allies then split Germany up.)

Joe.

[TechWins]

I just thought about something about capturing capitals. I think there's a difference between capturing the capital with the leaders in it and without the leaders in it.

Are you suggesting to have your leader to appear as a little unit? If not, than I'm not sure how this would work. Either way I don't really like it that much. If you could tell me how this might work I would appreciate it.

[JoeK]

No... I'm comparing real-life and the game.

In the game if a civ's capital gets capture (if their a big civ) then the civ breaks into two... but this doesn't happen (has it happened?) in real history because usually (or am I wrong?) the leaders flee the capital (in the game this is moving your capital) before it is captured.

Joe.

[Inverse Icarus]

having major cities (capital or large) will PROBABLY mean a huge cultural shock to the civ. that could make it suspectible to enroaching culture / schism.

we dont even know if schism is in the game.

WHERE THE FAWK IS FIRAIS?

... they're playing civ 3 ... like sadistical little bastards ...

i bet they're taping it too. and they'll relaease it.

16 firaxians, sid included, playing civ at a lan party.

all on tape.

laughing.

making the pictures too fuzzy to make anything out.

so good people have to fire up photoshop, zoom and sharpen, and dig to find out techs or cities or units.

and at the end its just sid looking into the camera laughing, flipping us all off.