The Enemies Capital.

[petey]

The enemy's capitol is where most of their production points generally come from, so if you grab it, you got the best chance of taking over some Wonders, which you need to do at higher levels as you can't keep up with the AI production.

Also, as civs are built outwards from the capitol, it's a good way to rip their empire in two, put your borders up there and slow down their units.

Also, they'll try and take the capitol back, so you have less armies attacking your own cities.

Also, it's fun to conquer peoples' capitols

[ShredZ]

HEY! A friend just reminded me that when you take a civs capitol, it destroys their Spaceship!

^^^ Now thats some good knowledge right there... might actually come in handy one time.

[Theseus]

Anecdotally, AI civ capitols are usually on VERY good sites. That's reason enough for me, right there.

Also, although the capitol has to move to support the trading model, it is possible to "push" the capitol into the least effective position from a corruption perspective.

Lastly, there's nothin' like stirring it up by giving a capitol to that civ's worst enemy (other than you)!!

[grapedog]

If you destroy a city with a wonder will the wonder be gone for good? I would sooner raze the capitol and move on to more razing, instead of garrison it and suffer constant attacks unless I was going to try and sue for peace...how long would THAT last!

Hmm, forbidden palace in your enemies capitol ought to help with keeping it on your side...

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Theseus
Anecdotally, AI civ capitols are usually on VERY good sites. That's reason enough for me, right there. . .

That's quite an assumption.

Capitals are invariably built whereever the game starts you at. Not always the most optimal position in terms of terrain, and sometimes at the tip of a long peninsula; thus, much of the palace's corruption-reducing is wasted.

In Civ 2 I was once bogged down in a massive war with Russia. We each had some minor allies. So, I sneaked across the ocean three fully loaded transports, with huge carrier and other naval support, and assaulted Moscow - which I stormed into after heavy fighting. Russia split into civil war, and that one amphibious attack decided the war. Such a clever move and its results could never occur with Civ 3.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by grapedog
If you destroy a city with a wonder will the wonder be gone for good? I would sooner raze the capitol and move on to more razing, instead of garrison it and suffer constant attacks unless I was going to try and sue for peace...how long would THAT last!

Hmm, forbidden palace in your enemies capitol ought to help with keeping it on your side...

i often said that capturing an enemy capital should make the captured city a forbidden palace type thing, therefore the new empire would have less corruption and whatnot... but it couldnt automove then.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by grapedog
If you destroy a city with a wonder will the wonder be gone for good?

Yes.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Coracle


That's quite an assumption.

Capitals are invariably built whereever the game starts you at. Not always the most optimal position in terms of terrain, and sometimes at the tip of a long peninsula; thus, much of the palace's corruption-reducing is wasted.

In Civ 2 I was once bogged down in a massive war with Russia. We each had some minor allies. So, I sneaked across the ocean three fully loaded transports, with huge carrier and other naval support, and assaulted Moscow - which I stormed into after heavy fighting. Russia split into civil war, and that one amphibious attack decided the war. Such a clever move and its results could never occur with Civ 3.

Your point being?

I don't think you read my post right... I was pointing out that the AI civs' capitols are often on optimum sites.

I would of thought that'd be right up your alley...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Coracle
In Civ 2 I was once bogged down in a massive war with Russia. We each had some minor allies. So, I sneaked across the ocean three fully loaded transports, with huge carrier and other naval support, and assaulted Moscow - which I stormed into after heavy fighting. Russia split into civil war, and that one amphibious attack decided the war. Such a clever move and its results could never occur with Civ 3.

In this case, you made a move that any player could have made (attack the capital). It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to do that. And yet, you make that one attack and the whole AI comes tumbling down. Civil wars were a huge exploit in Civ2, and such a commonplace strategy should not be rewarded with the gross destruction of an entire civ in Civil war. That's another reason the AI in Civ2 was so poor...

So, now that you have Civ3, you'll have to actually fight a war to win instead of unloading a few marines into one city. It's a shame, isn't it Coracle?

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Capturing enemy's capital: reality suggestion

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...

...

The biggest deal -if your army is strong enough, I mean- is the risk of a flip back occuring as the AI's capital will be instantly elsewhere, usually right next to the previous capital (palace jumps always to best developped/largets cities --> usually very near of ancient capital) that you have just conquered.

If the AI civ is almost definitely beaten, you shouldn't mind garrisoning too many units in the previous capital, but instead focus on 'terminating' the civ completely --> no more flip back risks. But if you're adversary is really dangerous/big, crippling the capital (bombing/pillaging all roads) is more important than actually capturing it.

I would have beter liked this though:

to capture a capital should be a major (temporary) KO for the civ, resulting in an extra capital for the attacker (maybe only for a certain period of time), instead of a palace jump for the pushed back civ.

It would make capturing capitals more important/strategic and it would reflect reality better. (eg. all major wars: the capital always reflects the ability to fight; to lose it almost always equals losing the war, at least for a certain period).

AJ

[grapedog]

Maybe, if there is not one already, have a serious drop in culture just for losing or forced relocating of a capitol city. What culture wants to see their capitol destroyed and moved. Or perhaps all cities suffer 1/2 culture for the remainder of the war until the capitol is taken back. Disheartened, they look to their neighbors lands wondering why their leader sucks...

[Jon Shafer]

The loss of the capital city for civs throughout time was a huge moral hit. Production would wane, troops wouldn't fight as well, etc., all major industrial and government buildings were located in the capital. In history the loss of the capital was a huge hit, but in this game it doesn't matter one bit...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Trip
The loss of the capital city for civs throughout time was a huge moral hit. Production would wane, troops wouldn't fight as well, etc., all major industrial and government buildings were located in the capital. In history the loss of the capital was a huge hit, but in this game it doesn't matter one bit...

That's what Napoleon thought when he took Moscow.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by grapedog
Hmm, forbidden palace in your enemies capitol ought to help with keeping it on your side...

If you capture a city with a Forbidden Palace, but you've already got one, do you then get two?

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by zulu9812


If you capture a city with a Forbidden Palace, but you've already got one, do you then get two?

I always thought the FP is a small wonder and that gets lost once you capture the city. But I'm not sure whether it can be rebuild by the civ who lost it.