Thread Tools
Old February 20, 2002, 14:46   #1
PapaLenin
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 90
Useless Capitals
Now what do u get if u capture enemy capital... Absolutely nothing. I think that when a capital is captured the palace won't just be reconstructed immideately to other city. There should be BIG disadvantage when capital is captured!!!
U agree, have any suggestions?
PapaLenin is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 15:26   #2
Worthingtons
Prince
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pride Park,Derby
Posts: 393
Yep, Completely agree it should have a bigger effect, on Civ II you could destroy a civ by taking it's capital..
__________________
Up The Millers
Worthingtons is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 15:56   #3
Spec
Emperor
 
Spec's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: of poor english grammar
Posts: 4,307
Re: Useless Capitals
Quote:
Originally posted by PapaLenin
Now what do u get if u capture enemy capital... Absolutely nothing. I think that when a capital is captured the palace won't just be reconstructed immideately to other city. There should be BIG disadvantage when capital is captured!!!
U agree, have any suggestions?
Absolutly, I agree! You should get atleast half of the conquered's treasury and some techs that you haven't learned. Well.....Someting or other.


Spec.
__________________
-Never argue with an idiot; He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Spec is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 16:02   #4
The Andy-Man
Prince
 
The Andy-Man's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tory Party of 'Poly
Posts: 523
should send the civ into disorder and posibly anarchy for a few turns (3-6). should cut off trade deals, and resources shouldnt get to a city, and a palace HAS to be built. unless there is FP, then palace ges there auto after disorder and everything is back to normal.
__________________
eimi men anthropos pollon logon, mikras de sophias
The Andy-Man is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 16:25   #5
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
actually from my testing it seems that if you give the palace a defensive rating that if you city gets sacked by barbarians they can burn down your palace and it won't automatically reappear, also it doesn't seem like you can build a new palace until your old one is dead

i'm not sure about any other changes though

i'll test more and report back to you
korn469 is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 17:40   #6
PapaLenin
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 90
Yep I agree with u all... There really should be major effects like those u said. Thx for answering

Quote:
actually from my testing it seems that if you give the palace a defensive rating that if you city gets sacked by barbarians they can burn down your palace and it won't automatically reappear, also it doesn't seem like you can build a new palace until your old one is dead
Cool so we propably won't have to wait for next pach. Thanks korn
PapaLenin is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 17:42   #7
Purple
Prince
 
Purple's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Austin, TX, US
Posts: 723
I like The Andy-Man's idea about promoting the city with the Forbidden Palace to the capital. The FP could automatically become the Palace, and a new FP could be built elsewhere.

Without an FP, a new palace should be built from scratch, although it wouldn't have to cost an arm and a leg.

One question, though: how would the absence of a palace be reflected in waste and corruption?
Purple is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 17:49   #8
sachmo71
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: de Tejas
Posts: 158
I like the anarchy idea, but maybe instead of them automatically getting a new palace they should have to build one. In the meantime, the city could automatically get a much less effective building that acts as a mini palace until they build a new one.
I guess I can see why they have it so that you automatically get a new one, as the resources devoted to a new palace might cripple a smaller civ from continuing a war, but a less effective building would probably be more fair (dare I say realistic?).
sachmo71 is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 18:17   #9
nato
Prince
 
nato's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Unite
Posts: 532
I guess I will be the obligatory dissenting opinion...

I don't think taking the capital should be too damaging. In Civ2 it was just too easy to devestate huge empires on the first turn of war with a sneak attack on their capital. With the ability to abuse right of passage agreements, this would be even easier.

Losing the capital is a big symbolic blow, but I don't think it should devestate an enemy. I don't think in a serious war a nation will stop fighting because it lost its capital. The unconquered lands should not be hurt by it.

One idea I have to add is maybe your form of government should affect how much losing your capital hurts. Highly centralized governments like communism would probably be more hurt than liberal democracies.
nato is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 18:37   #10
sachmo71
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: de Tejas
Posts: 158
Nato, I agree with you for the most part. I don't think it should stop it, but if a capitol is taken, it would disrupt communications, business, and generally be a blow to the psyche. That's why I think a less powerful palace, sort of temporary capitol, should be the result. That would make taking the capitol more of a strategic objective. Maybe the temporary capitol could gain more influence as more tuns pass, as the government settles into their new digs...with an initial penalty to building, science, and tax collection that gets lower and lower as turns go on. If they suceed in building the palace quickly, the penalty is eliminated.
sachmo71 is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 20:16   #11
Skanky Burns
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansApolytoners Hall of FameACDG3 Spartans
 
Skanky Burns's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:51
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Skanky Father
Posts: 16,530
Im surprised no-one has mentioned this before, but what is the effect of the palace?? It determines the amount of corruption in other cities and also determines the chance that cities will culturally flip.

So what happens if you destroy the enemies capital, and it is not rebuilt. You have created a palace-less enemy.

Now each enemy city will have no corruption (no distance from capital) and will never culturally flip for the same reason.

I agree that a civ needs to be punished when their capital falls, but doing that isn't the answer
__________________
I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).
Skanky Burns is offline  
Old February 20, 2002, 21:41   #12
Kilroy_Alpha
Warlord
 
Local Time: 12:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, US
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Im surprised no-one has mentioned this before, but what is the effect of the palace?? It determines the amount of corruption in other cities and also determines the chance that cities will culturally flip.

So what happens if you destroy the enemies capital, and it is not rebuilt. You have created a palace-less enemy.

Now each enemy city will have no corruption (no distance from capital) and will never culturally flip for the same reason.

I agree that a civ needs to be punished when their capital falls, but doing that isn't the answer
This is true. Prior to 1.16 you could even do this yourself provided you got lucky enough. If you started close enough to a rival civ, didn't build a city, and managed to conquer a rival with units you got from goody huts you'd have your first city, with no palace. And no palace = zero corruption.
Kilroy_Alpha is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 04:50   #13
Pius Popprasch
Warlord
 
Pius Popprasch's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 120
Without a palace corruption is endlessly high and not low because the distance to the palace is infinite. In Civ1 where corruption was a minor issue it worked like that. Corruption was high.
In real history it had a major impact - to say the least - when the capital was taken. E.g. after Paris was taken by the Germans 1940 France surrendered.
In Civ3 there could be 3 turns of Anarchy and not more. It's a game and the balance should be maintained.
Korn's mod seems interesting if there is no other fix.

Pius Popprasch is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 11:37   #14
Ironikinit
Prince
 
Ironikinit's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 421
One bonus to taking the capital is that it seems to generate leaders. I say seems because I can't really prove it or anything, but I'd say 2 out of 3 times that I beat the last defender in a capital (it has to be the original capital, it doesn't seem to work with the next in line capital) with an elite unit, I generate a leader.

One idea I had was if you take a capital that you could force a revolution to the same government type as yours as part of the peace negotiation, but you have to give the capital back. It would probably just be a needless complication tho. Nato made a good point about how easy it is to wax a capital with a sneak attack.
__________________
Above all, avoid zeal. --Tallyrand.
Ironikinit is offline  
Old February 21, 2002, 11:53   #15
fezick31
Warlord
 
fezick31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:51
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cliffs of Insanity
Posts: 160
bring back civil wars
I'd like to see a signifiganct chance of Civil War. Especially if war weariness is high, they are a totalitarian govt, or there is rampant corruption.

I also think that there should be a probability of losing diplomatic ties or embasies with other civs, and having to reastablish them.

Something else that might be neat, although probably not feasable currently, would be a chance that you caught the leader in the capital when you took it. The result would be a new leader for that civ.
fezick31 is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:51.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team