Capturing Enemy Capitals

[Inverse Icarus]

what if when you captured an enemy capital, their palace stayed there (or some other building with a similar effect)? this could be GREAT in dealing with corruption in war-torn distant isles, and give the game a more realistic "hit them where they live" effect.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

i still wish they'd bring back split civs for when a capitol is captured.

I dont see how keeping a foreign capitol building would pacify the conquered people much. I thought palace was more conceptual than the actual building. They should allow us to build more FPs tho. Maybe one for every dozen cities that you own, or such.

[Fidel]

i like to go for their capital and raze it, halving their culture and destroying their kampfwille

[Thrawn05]

I tend to keep the capital, as a prize for my victory over the scum civ that In have destroyed.

[Ghengis Brom]

I typically raze enemy capitols, it totally destroys the culture of that civ for the rest of the game. It also makes it a lot easier to finish conquering them.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Re: Capturing Enemy Capitals

Originally posted by UberKruX


what if when you captured an enemy capital, their palace stayed there (or some other building with a similar effect)? this could be GREAT in dealing with corruption in war-torn distant isles, and give the game a more realistic "hit them where they live" effect.

I agree. Would be great, but would make humans even stronger toward AI civs (in terms of planning military campaigns).
Nevertheless, I want this concept installed in a future patch.

Usually I want to keep enemy capitals if they have a GW that's still active. Capturing an enemy's capital in real life would be experienced like a huge and tremendous almost knock out punch, breaking both militaristic and mental power of the enemy's population ...
In civ3 the capital is immediately replaced, not well reflecting this general feeling of defeat ... Giving the capital to the conqueror reflects this sentiment much better. Extra benefit for the conqueror is the substantial decrease of corruption in the newly acquired territories.

I was never a fan of the corruption settings. However, just a third palace (for ex. a conquered one) would make these settings almost PErFECT. (IMO)

My vote goes to:

YES FIRAXIS, YOU SHOULD INCLUDE THIS !! !!

Real cool idea !

AJ

[Inverse Icarus]

yea, in civ3 the Palace is real expensive to move, and they just GIVE people new capitals when they lose the old one. Civ2's system of having to rebuild it makes more sense IMO.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by UberKruX
yea, in civ3 the Palace is real expensive to move, and they just GIVE people new capitals when they lose the old one. Civ2's system of having to rebuild it makes more sense IMO.

And while they are at it, stop the AI from automaticly building another city with out a settler if you destroy all known cities of theirs in the early stage of the game. I hate that.

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm going to be an optimist on this one ( ) and assume it's a bug. Firaxis, make it so that it counts CITIES not potential ones

[Spiffor]

I assume it's a feature, not a bug. At the very beginning of the game, no one has cities, only potential ones. And you can remain nomadic until you discover a good spot. So, there shouldn't be defeat when there are settlers remaining. Otherwise, nobody will make it past 4000 bc.

[Willem]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
They should allow us to build more FPs tho. Maybe one for every dozen cities that you own, or such.

Just get the Civ3MultiTool and make your own then, you can have as many as you want. I think I'm up to at least half a dozen in my game. I've made a number of them gov specific, so it provides a bit of a challenge getting them built before I switch govs. And occasionaly that might put me behind the other civs who just jump to a new gov as soon as they can.

[Ethelred]

The idea is OK by me. A lot conquered civilizations were governed afterwards from the original capital.

I am not bothered by a civ getting a new capital though. Thats normal too. A capital is just the place where the government is run. They should return to the old capital if they retake it. Like the Germans have done now that they have Berlin back.

Ghengis Brom wrote

I typically raze enemy capitols, it totally destroys the culture of that civ for the rest of the game.

I have seen this claim before. I haven't seen isn't a reason to believe it. A simple look at the culture on the F8 screen should show that it isn't true.

Culture that is gained is never lost. What is lost if you take the capital is all the culture producing improvements that had been built in it. Sometimes that will be quite a lot in a capital. Even if they took the city back and rebuilt the improvements they lose the 1000 year doubling of improvements culture production.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think it makes good sense to have state or provincial capitals... it makes a lot of sense because that could theoretically make radiation of corruption from a capitol dependent on the separate ones rather than the National Capitol or the Forbidden Palace.

[Beren]

Important: If you capture the capital or any major city of the ennemy, make sure you defeat them soon. They will despose, even if you recently signed peace.

[Inverse Icarus]

or you can just starve the city until it's managable