It's a shame the civ is destroyed in the regicide options

Alexander's Horse · March 2, 2004, 18:37

I was reading up on this last might - if you kill the king the rest of the civ is destroyed.

Wouldn't it be better if the rest of the civ went over to your side? That would be more fun and could save a lot of time.

Willem · March 2, 2004, 19:16

I agree. I find that victory condition rather annoying really. In the Middle Ages scenario, I had finally taken out the French, playing as England, when all of a sudden there were swarms of Settlers from the Castillians and Germans trying to grab the land I had fought hard over. I really wasn't in the mood for fighting two nations at once so I just gave up the game, went into the editor, and got rid of that victory type. I was really enjoying myself up to that point too!

Alexander's Horse · March 2, 2004, 20:36

They could easily option that in a mod - i.e. a kill the king, take the civ option.

Would be useful on large maps.

vmxa1 · March 2, 2004, 20:40

Then it would not be regicide.

thesilentone · March 2, 2004, 20:43

It would still be regicide, the king would be dead.

But it won't happen in C3 as we know it, far too easily exploitable by the human since the ai rarely (if ever) moves it's king unit from the capital.

Alexander's Horse · March 2, 2004, 21:32

I dunno, could me historically accurate - Harold dies at Hastings, the Normans take the kingdom, that sort of thing.

Flip McWho · March 2, 2004, 23:19

It is kinda historically accurate really to get the kingdom after the king is dead. It would also save the brand new land grab thing and reward you for all your hard work in the war.

Fosse · March 3, 2004, 00:11

If it worked this way I might actually play Regicide!

Alexander's Horse · March 3, 2004, 01:51

Maybe there's some technical reason they did it like that - I wouldn't mind a view from a Firaxis person.

I actually advocated the regicide option in the lead up to civ 3 but the implementation is a little different from what I hoped.

lethe · March 3, 2004, 03:28

Well, I think having the kingdom switch to the civ that killed the king would be more beneficial for the AI then for humans, and also remove a tedium from the human.

You can, and probably should, have a settler flood complete with their will be garrisons ready to go. (As this means prolonging the war it can be somewhat difficult in a representative government though.)

Plotinus · March 3, 2004, 11:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I dunno, could me historically accurate - Harold dies at Hastings, the Normans take the kingdom, that sort of thing.

They still had to go and *take* the kingdom - it was simply relatively easy for them to do it because most of the English army had been killed at Hastings.

In any case, the Norman conquest wouldn't count as one civ conquering another in Civ terms, because William wasn't acting on behalf of the French government - he was a private individual with his own army acting on his own initiative (=barbarians?). After the Conquest, England was not part of the French empire: it just had a king and a new set of aristocrats who happened to be French. In the same way, Britain didn't become part of the Dutch empire in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution and the invasion of William of Orange. At least I hope not! I don't think clogs look very comfortable.

Shogun Gunner · March 3, 2004, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Plotinus
In the same way, Britain didn't become part of the Dutch empire in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution and the invasion of William of Orange. At least I hope not! I don't think clogs look very comfortable.

No, and I'm sure clogs are difficult to fight in....

MqsTout · March 3, 2004, 12:53

It'd be nice if it set the nation to permanent anarchy. No building or research, but what was there still is. It'd make it easier to take them over in the long run, but it wouldn't be immediate. There'd be no reinforcements, etc.

I ALMOST was going to say 'have it destroy all their units but leave the cities untaken', but then that'd really weigh in the favor of the Spanish and their Conquistador UU!

Locked into anarchy. Imagine losing your king in such a case. It'd be fun to play! Perhaps anarchy should be allowed to build non-upgradable warriors and nothing else in such a case.

joncnunn · March 3, 2004, 15:58

And how about this for irony:

James Stuart King of Scotland is invited to take the throne in England.
Not only did England NOT become ruled by Scotland, but this lead to Scotland being ruled by England.

Quote:

Originally posted by Plotinus

They still had to go and *take* the kingdom - it was simply relatively easy for them to do it because most of the English army had been killed at Hastings.

In any case, the Norman conquest wouldn't count as one civ conquering another in Civ terms, because William wasn't acting on behalf of the French government - he was a private individual with his own army acting on his own initiative (=barbarians?). After the Conquest, England was not part of the French empire: it just had a king and a new set of aristocrats who happened to be French. In the same way, Britain didn't become part of the Dutch empire in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution and the invasion of William of Orange. At least I hope not! I don't think clogs look very comfortable.

Krill · March 3, 2004, 16:10

Off-Topic: England has a knack of being invaded and assimilating the invaders, so they become English. Basicaly every new, major house of the royal family has arrived from a different country, for example, The: Stuats, Hanovorians, even the present monarchys' orriginal name is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Or something similar)

On topic: Yeah, it would be nice that if you killed the king you took the whole civ, but what about at the start? If you take the a civ right at the start, you can double your size. You could easily win the game before the cavalry with a bit of luck.

Feyd · March 3, 2004, 17:41

This is a bit impractical (all those buildings are destroyed?), but there's not much that can be done from the programming angle I think because, unlike Civ2, barbarian's can't have cities. Code that in and you'd have an interesting game even after the king dies.

My advice is to turn on the "restart dead players" option because it give the player another King unit (the Heir) in another town.

Anyway, I just play with it now. It actually was a good thing on the Sengoku Conquest because it cleared up land I was wanting to expand into rather quickly and I didn't have to worry about fighting time after time and dealing with the crappy AI placements if I captured a city.

Peace,

Feyd

Kuciwalker · March 4, 2004, 01:06

I hate that there's always at least on city that I can't take because the city is destroyed before the unit that killed the King unit takes the city

Jarred · March 5, 2004, 05:58

How about regicide is kill all units and production, leave cities intact for whoever can grab them?

Shogun Gunner · March 5, 2004, 09:15

I think the earlier idea of anarchy allowing no production, hence no new units, is a good idea. The defeated country offers limited, leaderless resistance.

The cities are intact for capture. I also don't like the idea that cities crumble into dust because the King dies....

bongo · March 9, 2004, 12:30

Anyone remember the civil wars in civ2? If you took the capitol of the strongest civ, his empire split in half. If you got half their empire when you killed the king and the rest just become barbarians or disappeared or whatever.

vmxa1 · March 9, 2004, 13:11

Yuk. I never liked that feature.

Shogun Gunner · March 9, 2004, 14:32

Actually I liked the civil war feature -- it was a pretty rare occurance. It really doesn't make to much sense from a historical perspective...but that's OT.

bongo · March 10, 2004, 03:53

It was fun, it allowed you to catch up on those über-AIs on the higher levels.

Switch · March 10, 2004, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I think the earlier idea of anarchy allowing no production, hence no new units, is a good idea. The defeated country offers limited, leaderless resistance.

The cities are intact for capture. I also don't like the idea that cities crumble into dust because the King dies....

I second that idea

. Perhaps as an addition, disallow the civ to engage in any diplomacy (who's sending the diplomats? obviously not the leader

), and, while not making it at war with every civ, any civ can attack it without worrying about repercussions (trade-wise, anyways), and all other trade deals are cut off (ie, mpp, lux, etc).

hexagonian · March 10, 2004, 11:00

It's basically a multiplay feature to streamline gameplay.

For single play, play regicide with the provision that the capital is one of the last city taken...

binyo66 · March 11, 2004, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Jarred
How about regicide is kill all units and production, leave cities intact for whoever can grab them?

IMO, its not a good idea, most likely human will get the most. Before killing the game, just place a unit next to every city.

player1 · March 11, 2004, 09:39

What I would really like is that civ, which loses a king, goes into 20 turns anarchy, with half units in garriosns and all units on open disbanded.

binyo66 · March 12, 2004, 02:07

That's a good idea. In addition, that civs become barbarians (anyway they dont have leader),n they keep current technology, but slowly advance.