Ability to change Capitals

Wouldn't it be something if we could change Caps in-game? I know some of you will say that its gay but I want only positive feedback. Think about it though- the first Continetal Congress had to change the capital of Philly to NYC because of Rebellions under the Articles of Confederation. We should be able to change capitals, too. But it should cost ALOT of money to do so, so that people won't keep running. I suggest maybe the player only gets 1 cap change per game, or, they pay a certain amount to change the cap. I would love support on this topic and hopefully Amok sees this and makes it a reality.

Yes i support with paying money to change cap

ADDTIONAL DETAILS
-You can only move your cap to land that you conquered.
-If an enemy is nearby, you cannot move your cap there.
-Your general must be in the desginated new-cap area.
-If an ally/enemy takes the new cap area, you cannot move your cap there.
PLEASE build on this guys! All suggestions are welcome!

How about you have to wait to move your cap? Like 10 weeks so that it's not too tempting?

Thanks Neves, and yea, good idea Jared

I do believe this has been suggested before, not sure what happend, but it is an intriguing idea. Personally, i think it should incur some sort of sp cost is it were implemented, and if you havent gained sufficient sp during the match, then your cap stays put.

Eshkruar nga KoS, 07.03.2013 at 15:14

but I want only positive feedback.

Then whole point of having a forum is lost. If you want only good opinions start a facebook fanpage of your idea.
If capitol had different role in the game (taxes, politics) that influences the country I could see why to move it. But capitol right now is only in victory conditions. Moving your capitol in capture enemy capitol type of game is not right. This game type is made so there is one city you can't lose no matter what. Imagine situation when UK is attacked and loses everything but moves it's capitol to Falklands... On the paper it's still there but in reality there is nothing left.

I support the Ideal if there enough limits on it. This would be handy if you have neighbor you don't really trust near your cap and you want to move away.

I support this.
but it should cost money and time.

Honestly I'd imagine it would be very annoying.
Just imagine in WWII that a UK is close to being killed, but then moves his cap to Belize or India or something.

I support this would evolve the game. But it will cost money alot and take some turns so you have to plan ahead think ahead. =) and if its cross ocean it will cost more and take longer. =)

citoj:

Capitol right now is only in victory conditions. Moving your capitol in capture enemy capitol type of game is not right. This game type is made so there is one city you can't lose no matter what. Imagine situation when UK is attacked and loses everything but moves it's capitol to Falklands... On the paper it's still there but in reality there is nothing left.

This is the reason it should not be implemented any time soon

If you make the Move cap to take lets say 10 turns can you explain to me how it will change something other then a wise player planing ahead thinking ahead knows if its right to move his cap from point *A to point *B and will cost him lets say 20k ? Explain to me how will this affect gameplay negatively ?

Hazardous, go take a break from the forums. Regarding this idea, it's a terrible idea for the reasons already stated - you're close to winning and the enemy just moves his capital.

And it shouldn't cost time or money either, just shouldn't be implemented at all.

You did not state a reply why ? Your why is like i dont like apples because i dont like apples so dont ask goodbye.

I want a rational reply.
Tell me how will this option in player created maps scenarios affect if a country changes his cap to change takes 20 turns cost 30k how will this F make the game op or Hazardous to the game

Only the smart or wise or any player that will think 20 !!!!!!!!!!turns with 30 k AHEAD of time ....
Will have the usage of this.
Argh

Janek read what I posted again.

For the sake of the argument, picture this:

You start as Turkey and you invade Europe. Another dude starts in Pakistan and takes over Asia and you were always at peace. Now the dude transfers his capital to Tokyo and declares war. How is that fair?

Just move your cap to UK and fight back lol

EDIT: k, actually, bad idea, nvm me

You missed the point if it will cost him (example) 30k to transfer his cap that will shorter his bank and will take 20 turns which gives you enough time to strick back at Pakistan or make stealths and be ready to take over Tokyo. LOL

And how would one know if one is in the proccess of moving the capital? The player moving the capital wouldnt be stupid enough to attack before the capital has finished moving, rendering your point redundant.

Lol this is so troll idea i dont like it's so unfair if iam usa and invade guy in europe and he change his capital in australia,that is troling game you cant win that )))))
i rly dont like troll version of atwar.

this is example how game will look with this idea===> Ability to change Capitals

This could really disadvantage others if implemented. Maybe some rules that you have to meet in order to change capital? Examples:

-You must not be at peace with anyone.
-There will be a 5 turn early warning system once you start the transfer.
-If any enemy unit doesn't matter stealth or not shows up with the view range of the capital the transfer is cancelled.
-It takes 15 turn to transfer the capital including the 5 early warning system.
-You must own the country.
-If the country is taken by time the transfer is complete it is cancelled.
-You lose all strategy benefits and nerfs [Like None Strategy] for 3 turns after the transfer.
-You need to pay 15k just as soon as you declare the transfer.
-Your countries population and incomes stop growing until the transfer is complete.