The Enemies Capital.

[ShredZ]

Whats the big deal about capturing the enemies capital ? Everyone always talks about taking it out as if its a big deal, so there must be something Im missing...

I can see trying to split a Civ in two so that one half doesnt get all the resourses that the other does, also the capital will probably have most of the Great Wonders in it, but besides that, the Capital just moves to the next closest/biggest city ... right ?

[Inverse Icarus]

Re: The Enemies Capital.

Originally posted by ShredZ
Whats the big deal about capturing the enemies capital ? Everyone always talks about taking it out as if its a big deal, so there must be something Im missing...

I can see trying to split a Civ in two so that one half doesnt get all the resourses that the other does, also the capital will probably have most of the Great Wonders in it, but besides that, the Capital just moves to the next closest/biggest city ... right ?

yes, the capital moves at no cost. they should make you PAY to move the capitial, ala civ2.

anyway, the capital city usually has a large number of culture points, and once it falls a lot of borders are shrunk, and cities wont flip back as easily.

but people do greatly overstate the importance of capturing the enemy capital... it really doesnt matter in the long run.

whats better is if you pillage all the roads around the enemy capital, so they cant trade with other civs. now thats smart

[ChaotikVisions]

Heh, its just sentimental reasons really. Get attacked, or attack someone and I set a goal, so and sos capitol. If I want to end the war this is good because they're more likely to sign a peace treaty if you near there capitol, and if I want a strike a blow this is good, because it takes out a major center for production and possibly has wonders as well.

[chrisgilbert]

or just nuke the crap out of it !

[Sean]

yes, the capital moves at no cost. they should make you PAY to move the capitial, ala civ2.

I agree. The free movement of the capital is silly. Particularly, when the new Capital cities culture ballons out.

[Jaybe]

... Particularly, when the new Capital cities culture balloons out.

[MontyPython mode]
No, it doesn't!! (does it?)
It's just a free Palace, so the culture isn't going to BALLOOOOON out (not for awhile anyway).
[/MontyPython mode]

Due to corruption and trade mechanics, a civ always has to have a capital. The central government just moves. They meet in some rich guy's mansion (if there are any left) and don't really build a palace until after the war situation stabilizes.

JB

[Coracle]

This is one of the most absurd parts of Civ 3.

I once attacked the Aztecs. I took their capital on FIVE consecutive turns as it jumped from one little town to another at no cost.

If they have a capital they have an automatic palace. And hence, we see that this is another of Soren's stupid "fixes" for the massive corruption problem.

Civ 2 handled this much better. Attacking the capital should indeed be very important - just ask the Germans in WW II if grabbing off Minsk was as big a deal as getting Moscow, which they never could take.

[Theseus]

On the one hand, I agree... capturing a capitol in Civ2 was cool.

On the other hand, from a trading perspective, the current implementation works quite nicely.

Next.

[notyoueither]

Why take the capitol?

That is where you will drive the most of your enemies before you and hear the loudest lamentations of their women!

It's also usually the best city of a civ. Kill it and the civ is usually ensured to be on the road to vassalage.

One other thing is that you will usually find some of the Wonders built by a civ in the original capitol.

Or... because it's there.

[campmajor!]

The only problem with capturing a civ's capitol is that it has such a big culture that it will flip back soon....

[The Eliminator]

Capturing or razing a capital is a big deal, and it should be treated as such. The civ should automatically split in (at least) two - same goes for the human player. You should get a score bonus, a happiness bonus, a tech bonus, and a relatively large cash bonus - nothing like "raiding the vaults for 78 gold."

One side of the split nation should immediately sue for peace, while the other one fights on. When you enter their capital, regardless whether or not you raze it, you should get at least half the size of the city in workers, symbolizing refugees and defectors. Permanent damage to the civ should be the result of losing their capital.

These above ideas should apply to fighting in the "middle" middle ages and beyond. For ancient times (before cities really start to grow), the victimized civ should suffer a major blow, by causing uncontrollable civil disorder for four or five turns, but they should not be permanently damaged at that age.

This added element would make war between nations on the same continent much more serious.

[Akka]

Capturing the capital should put the government in anarchy, just like if the player launched a revolution.
Not too imbalancing and still giving a good incentive to go for the target.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Capturing the capital should put the government in anarchy, just like if the player launched a revolution.
Not too imbalancing and still giving a good incentive to go for the target.

Good suggestion.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Jaybe
They meet in some rich guy's mansion (if there are any left) and don't really build a palace until after the war situation stabilizes.

Unless the government is communist, then they meet in the nearest factory.

I like the "throw the loser into anarchy" idea. It would be a nice way to abstract the transition to a new capital.

[Jaybe]

In addition to Anarchy for the victim, a little morale boost (less war weariness) for the conqueror.