 |
|
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...
I can see trying to split a Civ in two so that one half doesnt get all the resourses that the other does, also the capital will probably have most of the Great Wonders in it, but besides that, the Capital just moves to the next closest/biggest city ... right ?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001 time: 00:19
|
|
quote: 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...
I can see trying to split a Civ in two so that one half doesnt get all the resourses that the other does, also the capital will probably have most of the Great Wonders in it, but besides that, the Capital just moves to the next closest/biggest city ... right ? |
yes, the capital moves at no cost. they should make you PAY to move the capitial, ala civ2.
anyway, the capital city usually has a large number of culture points, and once it falls a lot of borders are shrunk, and cities wont flip back as easily.
but people do greatly overstate the importance of capturing the enemy capital... it really doesnt matter in the long run.
whats better is if you pillage all the roads around the enemy capital, so they cant trade with other civs. now thats smart 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chrisgilbert
|
|
or just nuke the crap out of it !
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001 time: 05:19
|
|
yes, the capital moves at no cost. they should make you PAY to move the capitial, ala civ2.
I agree. The free movement of the capital is silly. Particularly, when the new Capital cities culture ballons out.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Coracle
|
|
This is one of the most absurd parts of Civ 3.
I once attacked the Aztecs. I took their capital on FIVE consecutive turns as it jumped from one little town to another at no cost.
If they have a capital they have an automatic palace. And hence, we see that this is another of Soren's stupid "fixes" for the massive corruption problem.
Civ 2 handled this much better. Attacking the capital should indeed be very important - just ask the Germans in WW II if grabbing off Minsk was as big a deal as getting Moscow, which they never could take.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Eliminator
|
|
Eliminatorville
Nov 2001 time: 23:19
|
|
Capturing or razing a capital is a big deal, and it should be treated as such. The civ should automatically split in (at least) two - same goes for the human player. You should get a score bonus, a happiness bonus, a tech bonus, and a relatively large cash bonus - nothing like "raiding the vaults for 78 gold."
One side of the split nation should immediately sue for peace, while the other one fights on. When you enter their capital, regardless whether or not you raze it, you should get at least half the size of the city in workers, symbolizing refugees and defectors. Permanent damage to the civ should be the result of losing their capital.
These above ideas should apply to fighting in the "middle" middle ages and beyond. For ancient times (before cities really start to grow), the victimized civ should suffer a major blow, by causing uncontrollable civil disorder for four or five turns, but they should not be permanently damaged at that age.
This added element would make war between nations on the same continent much more serious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001 time: 21:19
|
|
quote: 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? 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|