Do you think capital elimination mechanic should be changed?

BandC

First Lieutenant

80 Badges

Oct 24, 2010

201

0

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #1

In the games I played, I usually skip other cities of the AI and go straight for the capital. I think capital elimination rule makes the game too easy. Do you think elimination should be based on total conquest instead? It would make the game more challenging.

 

Astasia

First Lieutenant

60 Badges

Jan 17, 2012

206

62

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #2

I definitely think it needs to be on the list when they add victory condition options.

 

durecellrabbit

Fuzzy Tree

97 Badges

Apr 6, 2005

814

47

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #3

I like the way civ5 conquest works where civs don't get eliminated from losing their capital and they have a chance to retake their capital.

 

U

unmerged(182689)

Second Lieutenant

1 Badges

Dec 9, 2009

137

0

• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #4

It should be optional. I prefer capital elimination to capturing all of their cities.

 

stuie

Second Lieutenant

26 Badges

Feb 15, 2001

110

0

Visit site

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #5

I like it as is. So I would hope any change would be optional.

To me, it would make the game more of a slog. If you can take their capitol, I think you've proven that you are able to take the rest.

 

Gaizokubanou

Colonel

35 Badges

Jun 8, 2006

993

59

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #6

What durecellrabbit and Pax Empyrean said. Having the option for AI to continue to fight but holding their capital city should satisfy the victory condition. Right now it's way too easy to snipe AI's capital cities.

 

hadberz

Second Lieutenant

58 Badges

Apr 15, 2012

157

1

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #7

I think optional would be nice. Once multiplayer is out I rather not have to station a ton of units around my capital. So if the other player gets the jump on me I could have a chance at retaking the capital.

 

Bored Peon

First Lieutenant

53 Badges

Nov 21, 2009

260

25

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #8

Well the AI does try defending it. If you notice a large majority of the AI units are usually around the capital. Also if you get close to their capital they tend to try to make peace with you.

 

GaryW

Second Lieutenant

93 Badges

May 26, 2009

100

0

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #9

As a selected option that would be cool.

 

Vladimir Pavlov

Senior Paladin

86 Badges

Jan 14, 2008

489

17

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 12, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #10

I'd suggest three options, actually
- Player loses immediately after he loses his capital ("Regicide")
- Player loses if he loses his capital and doesn't retake it within 10 turns ("Great Patriotic War")
- Player only loses if he loses all his cities (with settlers being as cheap as they are, this can lead to some long games though)

Also, as an additional checkbox option I'd suggest ability to move one's capital
- For, say, 1000 gold - within Ardania (price increases with each subsequent move)
- For 1000 Mana - to one of parallel worlds (it can be a spell, actually)

 

Sifer2

Major

48 Badges

Jul 18, 2007

537

135

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #11

Capital killing Conquest rules are good for multiplayer. Not so good for single player if your wanting a longer game. So it should probably be an option when they add them. Also if they ever buff Unity to not be counter spellable which they probably should. Killing the Mages capital to stop it will probably be necessary. Right now 5000 mana for a spell that will just get countered is basically a waste. They need to rework it to take much longer to cast but you can't be stopped unless they kill you.

 

Dragoon.x

First Lieutenant

43 Badges

Feb 15, 2011

203

0

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #12

They could add the Master of Magic mechanics where if a wizard loses his fortress (aka capital) but still had cities left, plus some mana reserves he could cast the spell of return.
During that time he could still use his units but not cast spells or interact in diplomacy. Not sure if city management was still working.

 

Astasia

First Lieutenant

60 Badges

Jan 17, 2012

206

62

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #13

Sifer2 said:

Capital killing Conquest rules are good for multiplayer. Not so good for single player if your wanting a longer game. So it should probably be an option when they add them. Also if they ever buff Unity to not be counter spellable which they probably should. Killing the Mages capital to stop it will probably be necessary. Right now 5000 mana for a spell that will just get countered is basically a waste. They need to rework it to take much longer to cast but you can't be stopped unless they kill you.

Click to expand...

I think the point of the Unity victory is to rush research and learn it before any other mages have the ability to counter it. I've come very close to losing to a game because an AI started casting unity before I could counterspell it, but I got lucky and learned it a few turns later. Though AIs also wont counter it if you are at peace, wont apply to multiplayer but I guess it's a nice way to end a game where you don't feel like killing everyone, pay for a peace with the remaining AIs and cast the spell at your leisure.

 

Viperswhip

Field Marshal

101 Badges

Feb 8, 2009

3.152

611

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #14

I do not think it should be removed. Extra Large maps take too long to play that way. The comp just needs better AI. A lot of the civs I have beat don't even station units in their capital, and if they do and it dies, they rarely replace it. The cost of leaving cities behind you should be a fortified capital with some good defensive units in it and tons of the AI mobs attacking you from behind.

It might be okay if there was some kind of scorched earth thing where the AI can't just sneak settlers behind you to the cities you just destroyed.

 

W

Wraithlin

Recruit

44 Badges

May 13, 2012

4

0

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #15

I think the mechanic should be changed because the computer doesn't exploit it but players do.

I think a better mechanic would be that when the capital falls, the second largest city becomes the capital and then the empire gets split in half. Half becomes neutral and the other half, with the new capital, remains with the archmage.

This would allow much faster killing of an archmage, but it doesn't overly benefit the player over the computer as the current system does.

 

Viperswhip

Field Marshal

101 Badges

Feb 8, 2009

3.152

611

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #16

I could go with that, to be honest, I was pretty surprised the first time I took a capital and the whole empire disappeared. Maybe the capital should have an avatar of the mage.

 

unmerged(486128)

Second Lieutenant

1 Badges

May 2, 2012

151

0

• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #17

I'd prefer it as an optional rule, myself. Play the game the way you want! Just because it's possible to take the AI's capital instead of all their cities first doesn't mean you have to. In the future multiplayer, it should be important to keep some units near your cities to defend them, especially the capital. As it works right now, I don't see how implementing a new rule to enforce a style of gameplay is superior to a player choosing to go about things a certain way. I personally like to destroy all of an AI's cities and keep the capital alive while I go do other things, but it can also be fun to march directly on the capital and sunder their empire directly!

 

U

unmerged(485046)

Corporal

Apr 29, 2012

25

0

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #18

How about the capital city gains defence bonuses based upon, say, the number of other settlements that player has?

 

Sifer2

Major

48 Badges

Jul 18, 2007

537

135

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #19

Astasia said:

I think the point of the Unity victory is to rush research and learn it before any other mages have the ability to counter it. I've come very close to losing to a game because an AI started casting unity before I could counterspell it, but I got lucky and learned it a few turns later. Though AIs also wont counter it if you are at peace, wont apply to multiplayer but I guess it's a nice way to end a game where you don't feel like killing everyone, pay for a peace with the remaining AIs and cast the spell at your leisure.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But in most games like this the research victory gives players a chance to stop it but they have to work harder. Like in Civ you would need to invade to stop the rocket from being launched. It's usually a sort of stalemate ending victory that limits how long the game can go on. Where as if it works like you say its just a mad dash to research an generate the 5000 mana. Undead also seem to have a big advantage there. I'm also of the opinion that currently later game spells research too quickly anyway. It seems like I only have need of a couple of research point producing buildings then everything is researching in under 10 turns. That just makes it either end the game just when its really starting or people get counter spell, and that victory condition might as well not exist.

 

unmerged(486128)

Second Lieutenant

1 Badges

May 2, 2012

151

0

• 

• May 13, 2012

• Add bookmark
• #20

Orosian said:

How about the capital city gains defence bonuses based upon, say, the number of other settlements that player has?

Click to expand...

This I like the idea of. More so if the bonuses for larger cities are much bigger than for smaller cities.