Longturn Forum

The game can easily end (for a player) if the capital city is taken. Would you like to have the Underground Tunnels small wonder for LT44? It was tested in LT40 and provided some good defense for one selected city. Here is the help text:

helptext = _("\
Tunnel warfare is a general name for war being conducted in tunnels and\
other underground cavities. Tunnels provide citizens and the defending\
troops a shelter and allow the possibility of ambush, counterattack and\
the ability to transfer troops from one portion of the battleground to\
another unseen and protected. Tunnels make it easier to defend a city.\
They add a +100% bonus to the intrinsic defense strength of units within\
the city against land, air and sea units (that is a two-thirds increase\
for small cities, or a one-half increase for cities larger than size 8)\
Underground Tunnels also prevent the loss of population which occurs\
when a defending unit is defeated by a land unit.\
")

It would still be possible to conquer the city but it would take some serious effort to do so.

Not especially. I don't like adding more defense.

I'd rather switch off "civil war" option. It makes no sense. Which country in history collapsed into civil war when its capital was taken? Also, from gameplay side: its a too easy way out. Like chess, just take the king and it's over. Less strategy, more a "game".

Sketlux wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

Ok, that's the French. Nobody except the Frenc ever surrendered after their capital was taken. At least if most of their land wasn't conquered already.

What we can have in Freeciv is a spearhead assault by a group of commandos taking one single city and then the whole empire collapses. Doesn't make sense.

I mean, if you like playing Freeciv like you play chess, fine. But don't call it "strategy", then.

We can also turn off the civil war. The civil war chance was already reduced 50% for all govs except anarchy.

Since Im not playing dont mind my opinion but there are some points to consider:

1. The possibility to take the capital from an almighty enemy gives David a chance against Goliath. Otherwise its just a matter of time and numbers. On the other hand if Goliath is too stupid to defend his capital against a weak enemy he deserves civil war.

2. It emulates a feature of war, if the enemy comes closer to your capital you have to evacuate your government. The punishment for not doing so is civil war.

3. When the French invaded Spain (and the capital) it sparked a civil war and most of the Latin American states declared independence. So it is perfectly realistic if parts of your territory use the chaos to declare independence from you.

Sketlux wrote:Since Im not playing dont mind my opinion but there are some points to consider:

1. The possibility to take the capital from an almighty enemy gives David a chance against Goliath. Otherwise its just a matter of time and numbers. On the other hand if Goliath is too stupid to defend his capital against a weak enemy he deserves civil war.

Maybe some disruption of government - MAYBE, because most of the time in history it was more a matter of the enemy approaching the big city than the fact that some services have been dislocated - but a straight-out loss of exactly half of the nation is a drastic overkill. The feature doesnt' really help David against Goliath, but instead simply allows one opponent, if he is strong enough, to knock down his enemy in one single blow and make it impossible for the enemy to recover, ever. Basically, the feature is a player-killer.

2. It emulates a feature of war, if the enemy comes closer to your capital you have to evacuate your government. The punishment for not doing so is civil war.

Why would the punishment for this be civil war?

3. When the French invaded Spain (and the capital) it sparked a civil war and most of the Latin American states declared independence. So it is perfectly realistic if parts of your territory use the chaos to declare independence from you.

I don't have much insight into that particular war, but my historical sense tells me that France had to conquer half the Spain and completely defeat the Spanish army in order to reach Madrid and that this is what incited the revolt and the rebellion, not the fact that Madrid itself was taken.

In WWII not a single surrender was triggered by the conquest of the capital. Quite the opposite: Norway kept fighting long after Oslo was taken and Soviet Union had plans to continue fighting even if Moscow was conquered. Same goes for WWI: Serbia never capitulated and its army continued fighting even though it was completely conquered. Same as Belgium and Romania.

Maybe some disruption of government - MAYBE, because most of the time in history it was more a matter of the enemy approaching the big city than the fact that some services have been dislocated

It hasnt to end in civil war. 5 rounds of Anarchy as substitute would suffice maybe?

if he is strong enough, to knock down his enemy in one single blow and make it impossible for the enemy to recover, ever. Basically, the feature is a player-killer.

Put enough defenders in your capital and it wont happen. I dont have compassion with greedy people.

In WWII not a single surrender was triggered by the conquest of the capital. Quite the opposite: Norway kept fighting long after Oslo was taken and Soviet Union had plans to continue fighting even if Moscow was conquered. Same goes for WWI: Serbia never capitulated and its army continued fighting even though it was completely conquered. Same as Belgium and Romania.

Sure. Civil war should be limited to governments with high discontent or land that is far away. The extent to the civil war is in my opinion too big. But if you have a far flung colony with a corrupt government, chances should exist.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to fine-tune the mechanics of the civil war. It is only possible to switch it on or off. In my view - and I explained why - switching it on doesnt' make sense.

And your view is problematic. "Put enough defenders..." What exactly is "enough"?

Also, what if you are actually a smaller power being attacked by a larger one? In that case, it is much more easy for your opponent to break through to your capital, whatever the cost may be, and kick you out of the game. That way he can avoid a prolonged war that would drain his resources or even get you reinforcements from allies.

Furthermore, if there are, say, three smaller allies against a single stronger opponent, the single one has the advantage: he can attack three capitals and the allies need to defend all three, while they can attack only one, so he has to defend only the one. So, in this case, this feature favours the stronger nation.

And your view is problematic. "Put enough defenders..." What exactly is "enough"?

Either the enemy is at the gates, then depending on the stage of the game, its quite easy to calculate (the defender to attacker ratio is quite on the side of the defender).

If you have an interior capital just calculate the possibility of a commando attack. Usually they dont include siege weapons since you cant carry them on triremes, thus reducing the defence cost. Secondly, its always clever to build your cap on a hill...

I just can tell from my experience that I never had a problem with defending my cap. On the other hand when I attacked with a coup de main I avoided targetting capitals since they are usually are better defended and other cities are easier targets.

Another idea... We could reverse the civil war probabilities. Remove the chance from anarchy, give tribalism/despotism 10% chance, monarchy 15%... and ending with democracy having 50% chance.

Then again we could also remove the civil war chance from all but few selected govs. Fundamentalism could have that risk. And monarchy?

Better defenses for the capital city is how LT40 was dealing with that. Then again even that wouldn't help if there are not enough units in the capital. Enough defenders is a tricky one.

I'd definitely remove civil war for Republic and Democracy. They have the downside of unhappiness due to military abroad (yes, I'd also remove Women's Suffrage) so this should balance it out.

As for other governments, well, it would make sense to have some sort of penalty, but having a 50:50 split of the nation is too much and having a probability only makes it worse because, simply, it's one roll of the dice: if you're lucky, nothing happens, if you're not lucky, game over for you. Removing civil war altogether would be the lesser evil.

Actually, I'd go with "no automatic palace rebuilding"; more corruption and waste, and make the palace more expensive.

nah, remove civil war - maybe, more defense to capital - where's the fun of a blitzkrieg?!

Just to add to whats been said already;
More capital defence - No.. if you dont locate and defend your capital well enough its your own fault.
No Civil war - Agree. Theres no place for AIs in longturn and no way to do it without AIs.. unless cities are just divided between neighboring players.
no auto palace. - Yes this would be a great alternative penalty for losing your capital. I suggest that the palace should have a base happiness bonus for all cities, so if you lose it you will get unrest everywhere until you build another, so simulating the effects of civil war/revolution without actually splitting players. So it not a knock out blow if you take a players capital but they will be weakened.