Capture of capital triggers civil war/revolution, twice signals surrender

[Alexander's Horse]

I would like to see more civil war in Civ III. If you conquered a civ's capital twice the civ should surrender (i.e. after you take the city the capital shifts to).

Multiplayers should also have a surrender option and/or an option to merge their civ with another. At the moment if say I'm losing I can't give all my cities including my capital to an ally. It would also be good if you could carve out another civ from your own and give it to another player! (say a hot joiner)

What do you think? Empires collapsing rapidly is something missing from civ II.

Maybe loss of wonders could also have nasty catastrophic effects, especially religious/happy wonders.

[TechWins]

I would like to see more civil war in Civ III. If you conquered a civ's capital twice the civ should surrender (i.e. after you take the city the capital shifts to).

So you're saying if somebody came here to the states and took over Washington DC that we should just surrender because there's no reason to fight for our freedom anymore. I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.

Multiplayers should also have a surrender option

As well as for the SP too. I only like this idea if you're referring to the fact of surrendering a city, for having the other civ stop the war. I don't like it if you're talking about surrendering your whole civ. Why would somebody want to surrender there whole civ, it's just a game?

an option to merge their civ with another.

People could get way too powerful. I don't like it at all.

Empires collapsing rapidly is something missing from civ II.

Maybe once in awhile but not all the time. Too much work and not enough fun.

Maybe loss of wonders could also have nasty catastrophic effects, especially religious/happy wonders.

Don't they already?

[Paul L]

I would like to see more civil war in Civ III. If you conquered a civ's capital twice the civ should surrender (i.e. after you take the city the capital shifts to).

So now we have only to conquer two cities per civ. Well that makes the endgame shorter, I guess.

[Alexander's Horse]

Capture Paris and France falls, capture London and Britain falls. That's the reality.

[Chronus]

"Capture Paris and France falls, capture London and Britain falls. That's the reality."

Hmmmm . . . Washington D.C. was captured and the U.S. DID NOT fall (War of 1812).

I agree with the earlier statement. This concept reduces the destruction of a civilization down to capturing two cities.

[Alexander's Horse]

I really wish some of you would think this through. It would not mean 2 city conquest. Firstly you would have to fight to get to someone's capital. This would normally involve taking more cities than the capital itself or at least defeating their army and/or navy in the field first. Then you would have fight to wherever the capital moved. If they didn't build a second capital you couldn't take it - but that would cost your opponent hugely in lost production and trade.

Cases where it would be "only" a case of taking 2 cities would be the exception rather than the rule. Everyone would stack up their capital with defenders - just like they do in real civs.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by TechWins
So you're saying if somebody came here to the states and took over Washington DC that we should just surrender because there's no reason to fight for our freedom anymore. I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.
Don't they already?

nah, neither do i.
only a massive tax raise can trigger a collapse of the us.

[Urban Ranger]

Napoleon took Moscow yet Russia didn't fall. the IJA took the Chinese capital but China didn't collapse.

I don't see what the justification of your suggestion is, Horse.

[Grumbold]

The loss of the capital is a huge blow to prestige but it certainly should not cause any automatic actions. The countries that surrender typically do so because they have no prospect of getting an army together and continuing to fight. They don't always wait for their capital to fall before doing so and a few years later they rebel and return to independence. Napoleon spent most of his military career conquering and reconquering Europe. Civ would need a whole new way of handling warfare to make this plausible. If it were possible to surrender, lose 1/4 production or gold to your enemy but then continue playing until you declare revolt then it could be a very interesting new aspect of gameplay.

[Urban Ranger]

I reckon it would be how concentrated a country's assets are. If losing the capital means losing 50% or more of production, it could trigger a surrender. If, on the other hand, it's not more than losing a big city, there shouldn't be any automatic reaction.

[Earwicker]

I think Civ3 should have Surrender, much as we see in SMAC, but not tied directly to the loss of capital cities. Instead, a civilization's surrender should depend its remaining strength relative to that of the invader. It should consider deployment of forces (how many are poised to take the next couple largest cities), ideology, history, etc.

Historically, surrender is an often-exercised option in warfare. Not every conflict has been setted with an equal peace or left to run to a fight to the last man. Civ2 always struck me as strange in that regard. If I'm invading the Babylonians and have overtaken 3/4 of their cities, my diplomatic choices were to stop fighting for little incentive (100 gold) or keep going and take them out entirely. Stopping the fight holds no promise that they won't sneak attack again, once my forces are deployed elsewhere.

[jake03]

One thing I think is missing, or atleast I have not seen it, Natural desasters should be a part of the mix, hurricance's earthquakes valcanoes. That would really make the game interesting having to compensate to these things with troop movments and building. It would really put a new spin on stratigie for instance you would not want to build a great wonder on a vacanic Island and invading countries on the warm climate may be postponed by weather.

[SerapisIV]

I like the idea. There should be some kind of mechanism through which a civilization is able to collapse and break into civil war. I think that capital capture is a great reason to have such an event occur.

With all these examples of the US, think older civs, say before nationalism. Before there was nationalism, did a city halfway across a nation care what happened in the capital? Until nationalism, nations really are mini-city-states like they're modeled in civ. So a capital capture would be a strong reason for half a civ to revolt. In modern nations, sure I agree that it would be much harder to breakup countries, but the US is an anomoly in the world, it was created by people wanting to come here and immigrating. Look at the former Soviet Union, it was a nation gained by conquest, there's ethnic wars all over over the Caucaus mountains.

I think it is here where culture will be great for Civ3. Say the Greeks beat up the Zulus and have captured a few cities. But the Greeks lose their capital to the invading Indians (that war-monger Gandhi), perfect excuse for the captured Zulu cities to revolt, and the Greeks split in Civil War.

[TechWins]

I really wish some of you would think this through. It would not mean 2 city conquest. Firstly you would have to fight to get to someone's capital. This would normally involve taking more cities than the capital itself or at least defeating their army and/or navy in the field first. Then you would have fight to wherever the capital moved.

It's too easy to just take over a capital. Nuke the city and if you can't get troops in that city without attacking just do a paradrop. I find war too easy in Civ2 this would only make war even easier in Civ3. I'm looking for a little bit more of a challenge in war not a way to take over the world even faster.

[Dr Strangelove]

How about having a surrender if the capital falls AND a certain percentage of the cities suffer enough morale loss that they revolt?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by TechWins


It's too easy to just take over a capital. Nuke the city and if you can't get troops in that city without attacking just do a paradrop. I find war too easy in Civ2 this would only make war even easier in Civ3. I'm looking for a little bit more of a challenge in war not a way to take over the world even faster.

If you are in that situation you are going to win anyway. Its part of my point - why should you have to conquer every itty bitty city to destroy a civ?

[TechWins]

If you are in that situation you are going to win anyway. Its part of my point - why should you have to conquer every itty bitty city to destroy a civ?

You should have to take over all the cities because empires don't just fall over and die if there capital gets taken over Plus if your capital or the AI's does get taken over for another reason that doesn't mean you or the AI absolutely have no chance of winning. Maybe you or the AI makes a bad move accidentally so your capital or the AI's gets taken over for the second time. You have no chance of going back and making up for that mistake, because guess what you or the AI's game is over. We also know how many times the AI makes a bad move. Another reason is, let's say you (the English) and the French are the top two countires. The Zulus are very weak but do have a lot of cities. You easily go take over the Zulus's capital twice with only loosing one unit, spending very little time, and spend very little money. . Now you have saved yourself a lot of time for conquering the rest of the world, money, and units by not having to take over all the of Zulus's cities. In taking over the Zulus you are so far ahead of the French now but if you would have had to exert more time, money, and units into the war against the Zulus you would have given the French a better chance. Having you model would just make it way too easy to conquer the whole world not just the civ you're attacking.

[Alexander's Horse]

Well we've already established on the bribery thread that you have hardly ever played so we'll note your views and give them the weight they deserve

[TechWins]

played so we'll note your views and give them the weight they deserve

Oh yeah I agree more arguements are nothing compared to yours. I mean you have had one or two line arguements while I only have about 17 lines in my arguement. Another reason why your arguements are better is, you also have to think about the fact that your arguements are lame and TRYING to be insulting. So yes I don't know what I'm talking about, only the 1-2 line only King (Alexander's A Jackass) knows what he talking about.

[Alexander's Horse]

What you say in 17 lines, I can say in 1 or 2

Brevity is the soul of wit



Can we get back to the TOPIC please.

[TechWins]

What you say in 17 lines, I can say in 1 or 2

You really don't know what you're even talking about do you?

Can we get back to the TOPIC please.

I doubt you remeber because of your stupidity you're the one who got off subject. If you have anything important to say say it if not keep you mouth shout.

[KrazyHorse]

Boys, boys, boys....Hey! Watch where you're aiming that thunderbolt, AH.

[C. Gerhardt]

Oh, sorry.

I fell asleep reading your last STUPID replies, aspec. TechWings.

Does the side really matter or the contence?

Lets see, .... , .... , o yea, capital takeovers.

I don't like the of surrender after loosing your capital twice. This means that if you have a civ of 25 cities, mostly 15+, and you will loose your capital for the second time (still confused about the fact someone will capture its first?!?!) you loose the game. No chances of retaliation of some kind, rebels, resistance groups, just plain DEAD?

Fortunatly i live in a country where the government doesnt seat in its capital. Littlebit harder to demand surrender from a major.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Firstly you would have to fight to get to someone's capital. This would normally involve taking more cities than the capital itself or at least defeating their army and/or navy in the field first. Then you would have fight to wherever the capital moved.

I dont like it then it comes to AI-civs. However; Im all for adding optional "surrender house-rules" then it comes to MP-games.

If the capitol city have been conquered twice and half (or more) of the population is under conquered rule, then (and only then) a popup-message informs the loosing MP-player that he now have the free option to handover the remaining rest of his shattered empire (= unconditional surrendor). However, as long as the loosing MP-player have cities still left under his control - he can choose to ignore this surrender-option, and continue fighting instead. Its a free choice.

Above MP-surrender-to-MP option should ONLY be available after above strict conditions have been meet. If the MP-player wants to quit regardless above conditions; the AI takes over command.

Just an idea: Should the loosing MP-player also be able to surrendor to another MP-player of his choice - other then then the one who threatens to squash him?

The reason I dont want this feature in the main-game fighting against AI-civs, is that the human player can exploit this option much easier then the AI-civ can. It should be an MP-option only.

[JoeK]

I just thought about something about capturing capitals. I think there's a difference between capturing the capital with the leaders in it and without the leaders in it.

Am I correct in saying that most times in history, when the capital was captured and the country didn't collapse, this is because the leaders had already left the capital. This would be the equivalent of moving your capital in Civ. In real life, when you see the enemy heading towards you, you get your leaders to saftey.

But if the capital was captured suddenly (surprise attack, etc) and the leaders would captured, then things would be different. (What has happened historically when leaders were captured in their capital? All I can think of is Germany in WWII, and the Allies then split Germany up.)

Joe.

[TechWins]

I just thought about something about capturing capitals. I think there's a difference between capturing the capital with the leaders in it and without the leaders in it.

Are you suggesting to have your leader to appear as a little unit? If not, than I'm not sure how this would work. Either way I don't really like it that much. If you could tell me how this might work I would appreciate it.

[JoeK]

No... I'm comparing real-life and the game.

In the game if a civ's capital gets capture (if their a big civ) then the civ breaks into two... but this doesn't happen (has it happened?) in real history because usually (or am I wrong?) the leaders flee the capital (in the game this is moving your capital) before it is captured.

Joe.

[Inverse Icarus]

having major cities (capital or large) will PROBABLY mean a huge cultural shock to the civ. that could make it suspectible to enroaching culture / schism.

we dont even know if schism is in the game.

WHERE THE FAWK IS FIRAIS?

... they're playing civ 3 ... like sadistical little bastards ...

i bet they're taping it too. and they'll relaease it.

16 firaxians, sid included, playing civ at a lan party.

all on tape.

laughing.

making the pictures too fuzzy to make anything out.

so good people have to fire up photoshop, zoom and sharpen, and dig to find out techs or cities or units.

and at the end its just sid looking into the camera laughing, flipping us all off.