Regicide - almost there

[Lambiorix_be]

I like the new victory condition 'regicide'. It is however a pity that when you destroy the king of another civ, all their cities are transformed into rubble. The result of the killing of the king should be that the cities should become part of your empire. I always lacked the 'surrender' option in the civ series. (you could make it variable with the government type...)

It would make the game more realistic and less 'genocidal' :-)

[CiverDan]

I disagree with all their cities going to you. That could turn the game too much in your favor, if those were the only other cities on the continent you were on. It also could turn all of that territory into a land-grabbing fest where civs that border you suddenly declare war to grabs all those now undefended cities... One other thing, If there were only 3 civs in the game, it would be possible to win by domination just be killing the king of one of the civs, if your territory plus the territory of the civ whose kings you just killed was greater than the domination limit. For these reasons, that idea would not have worked.

[Fried-Psitalon]

That could make things painfully unbalanced, and make suicide thrusts of troops an even greater threat than they already are in this mode.... I can't count the number of games I've won with some careful diplomatic investigation and a mad rush of 3-movement troops, particularly if the target of my "assassination" isn't watching.

I'd rather see the cities become 'rogue states' and stand on their own. History is rich with examples of city-states that stood after their empire fell....only to be gobbled up by the next rising empire.

[Antonin]

Another fun option would be to see those "kingless" cities become a number of multi-city mini-states in their own right.

[Mad Bomber]

I don't like the idea of regicide. How probable is it that a civ would collapse with the death of its leader? Leaders die, the state lives until it is no longer relevant its citizens.

The King is Dead. Long live the King.

[Lambiorix_be]

I agree with Mad Bomber. I find complete destruction too far fetched. If total 'surrender' is too unbalancing , i think some cities (A small number) would still have to become your property while others would continue to fight under a new king or maybe revolt and become a new seperate civ.

Even the current regicide rules turn the game in a land grabbing fest since a lot of cultivated land becomes available. Just prepare settlers before the murder of the king and all you need to do is establish new cities. Most of the time I first destroy kingdom's that only border my empire so other civ's are not immediately tempted to grab new land. (By the time they do arrive all productive land has been occupied)

[laissez-faire]

I've been thinking about this for a while as well. Under logical conditions, my suggestion would be that all remaining cities' populations and garrisons would be cut in half and the treasury would be all but eliminated (the booty going to the regicidal maniac).

However, the name of the game is keep your leader alive; therefore, if a king is killed, then that civ has to be eliminated. My only suggestion now would be that at least the capital city is given to the regicidal civ. (I say capital city because the AI is not smart enough to ever move its leader. ) The reason being is that the king is the last unit in the city. Once you defeat him, your troops enter an empty city. The way the game is currently set up, the capital is destroyed which destroys many, many wonders.

Otherwise, I like this gameplay. It adds a realistic feel to the game in that capital cities are heavily garrisoned and it takes a real effort to destroy a civ.

Side note 1: One quick tip for regicide players is to use your king as an exploratory unit at the very beginning of the game. Again taking advantage of the AI's lack of awareness that whacking a roaming king would eliminate you.

Side note 2: Fortunately I haven't had to deal with other civs coming at me with nukes, but what would be the best treatment for your king in nuclear warfare? I thought about putting him in a transport garrisoned with 20 battleships in the far corner of the ocean.

[Mad Bomber]

Side note 2: Fortunately I haven't had to deal with other civs coming at me with nukes, but what would be the best treatment for your king in nuclear warfare? I thought about putting him in a transport garrisoned with 20 battleships in the far corner of the ocean.

Just keep him 2 tiles away from any city. The AI only targets cities with Nukes.

As for the side note 1, this is another reason I don't like regicide, you basically get a free scout unit (5 if playing mass regicide) which greatly diminishes the expansionist trait.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Ever had barbarians pop out of the goody hut your king pops?

Expansionist lives on.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Ever had barbarians pop out of the goody hut your king pops?

Expansionist lives on.

not with mass regicide, you use 4 for scouts, and keep one in the capital for safekeeping. Even with just regicide, popping a barbarian goody hut with a king is a rareity, and unless playing on Monarch or above will usually survive even if it does.

[laissez-faire]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Ever had barbarians pop out of the goody hut your king pops?

Heh, heh. A side effect of the strategy. I've popped many a barb hut, but never lost a king to them. They're fast enough to escape most of the attacks and the new "smart" barbs don't always necessarily attack him. Also I've had Brennus promoted to elite on a number of occaisions.

[CiverDan]

Regicide was meant for MP only. In SP, just a matter of attacking the AI capital. In MP the mode doesn't live up to its potential because by the time you fnially kill your opponents king, you have taken enough of his cities that he would soon be wiped out anyways.