I have as my capital a city with 5 luxury resources surrounded by desert tiles. Its production, with no chance to improve, is horrible. I wish to change my capital to a city in a lush and hammer rich area without losing my money tree.
I have as my capital a city with 5 luxury resources surrounded by desert tiles. Its production, with no chance to improve, is horrible. I wish to change my capital to a city in a lush and hammer rich area without losing my money tree.
no. it's completely unrealistic and historically inaccurate, but you can't change your capital city unless it gets conquered.
Past games had a "Palace" improvement, which allowed you to move your capital to whatever city it was rebuilt in. For whatever reason, this feature does not exist in Civ V, so there is no real way to change your capital. Its automatically moved when you lose your capital, but if you recapture it, I think it gets moved back.
there is a palace building, but you can't build itOriginally Posted by mwallyn
That's really unrealistic. I live in Germany and we changed our capital city 3 times in the last 70 years.
Good thing its a video game, and not real life.
I think one reason (or perhaps even the main reason) is because a domination victory requires you to be the last one in possession of a capital.
It would become more difficult, open-up exploitation, or favor unorthodox tactics if you could switch your capital city. Especially later in the game with high production cities and when tensions are greatest as everybody is scrambling to win and blowing each other up. Civs could play "hot potato" with their palace amongst their cities.
games are more enjoyable when they're believable
so implement a penalty for changing your capital. anarchy, perhaps.
You can't change it because of the new domination victory, but that's a problem because the domination victory is really poorly designed. Technically, you can win the victory completely peaceful as long as everyone else conquers everyone else.
A game that exactly mimicked real life would be the most believable a game could possibly get.
A game that exactly mimicked real life would be just as enjoyable as real life.
Therefore, real life is more enjoyable than any game.
So why are we playing games if it just decreases our enjoyment of life?
Restrict it to cities with more than a certain number of citizens, the amount increasing with age. Only X number of production can be put into the Palace building per turn, the rest is converted into culture at some reduced rate (gold would be exploitable), with the total cost and X increasing with age. If you are at war, you cannot move your capitol. If production of a new Palace is under way when war is declared, either by the constructor or a foreign aggressor, production on the Palace will be abandoned (forcibly pushed into the last slot in the build queue) until one side is the victor or a peace treaty drawn.
Thoughts?
I said believable, not hyper-realistic.
Yeah you can't raze or move Capital cities. Cause of the Domination rules. The idea of Anarchy to balance out the moving isn't bad though. Some kind of concept like that which makes it a bad idea to use during a war would probably be enough to make it fair.
But then again i'm picturing some people moving their capital into some kind of Mountain Fortress position just to exploit the way Domination works.
Even with anarchy, it would probably still be very well worth it to shuffle your capital around to prevent losing. I think so anyway...
Also, another reason they probably felt it was unnecessary to move the capital is because there isn't any city maintenance or corruption based on distance to the capital.
there should be
True, I was more getting at the fact that you can't build it anywhere. Prolly should have been more specific.
You can move your capital. You would need to create a new building and give it the <Capital>true</Capital> tag in XML. Your Palace would remain in the previous capital and still give you it's bonuses - but your new capital would be wherever you built the new building with the <Capital>true</Capital> tag. The star icon moves to this new city and it's the one that will now need to be captured for a domination victory. If you wanted to remove the bonuses from your initial palace you could give it the <ObsoleteTech>TECH_X</ObsoleteTech> tag where TECH_X would be a tech you already learned - say agriculture - and your initial Palace would now just be a useless template. Or, you could make it so that Palace's have a maintenance cost and just sell the building after you build your new palace, or whatever you end up calling your new building with the <Capital>true</Capital> tag.
Really? When? Berlin to Bonn and back again? Am I missing something?
I understand why you can't raze capitals, but why can't you move them? The domination victory condition is actually the last one left to remain in possession of their original capital. Why can't we move the capital, but then the original capital gets a small symbol (where the trade route symbol is) that tells you to protect that city? The current rules mean that all you have to do is wait for someone to blitz everyone else, and then go on a small campaign against them to only take their capital. By the rules, you therefore win the game.
Reality isn't believable?
Being believable and being enjoyable aren’t at all related. Pac-man was totally unbelievable in every way, yet was very popular.
^ Troll
The simple undeniable fact is that games that are good generally become better when more useful options are added in.
I'm not discussing the benefit of "useful options", I'm discussing the benefit of "believable" options; being "believable" does not equate to "useful". Something being "believable" in and of itself is not a sufficient reason to add it to the game, and has no bearing on how fun or entertaining it is.
yup pretty much all the victory conditions are hogwash, slapped together in a few hours type of work, and the mechanics that govern them as well, such as not being able to move your capitol, and no city maintenance based on distance from capitol or number of cities. They had all the mechanics, code, you name it staring them in the face in the form of V's predecessor but they chose to discard it.... poor decision
try chess, then. a lot of civ players appreciate a certain degree of immersion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote