Second capital

A second capital would divide by 2 the necessary shields/hammers to unit construction in every city with barracks. It would represent the greater level of control of your territory this division can allow. On the other hand, it would let the control of 1/2 of your empire under the control of the AI, with all the risks it have (definitive civilization split). You could create a second capital within a civilization of a certain number of cities, for example 15.

The Forbidden Palace (and Versailles) are already essentially second (and third) capitals already.

Maybe, but they aren't really, not in the way Constantinople have been for Rome. If half of your civ is managed by the AI, there are risks of total splitting, for example the AI civ could begin to trust another religion, and then there would be few chances to a single emperor to rule it again, and war could even start between those two parts!

Btw, what is the effect of the Forbidden Palace and Versailles in Civ4? (I don't have it yet)

If half of your empire goes away, why would anyone every designate a second capital?

I would like to see the Versailles and Forbidden City wonders give the cities they are constructed in the +50% commerce and +50% hammer production under bureaucracy that only the capital normally gets. Don't know how that would affect game balance though.

Naokaukodem said:

Btw, what is the effect of the Forbidden Palace and Versailles in Civ4? (I don't have it yet)

Click to expand...

They reduces the distance maintenance cost of cities, as they count as the capital for these purposes.

Cities have two maintenance aspects - distance and total number of cities - between the two it can cost you a LOT of gold. Distance maintenance is computed from the nearest capital.

ahigh said:

If half of your empire goes away, why would anyone every designate a second capital?

Click to expand...

Well, half of your empire would not be really away, as it would be still your empire, the cities of the AI controlled part still being yours. The only fact is that, in a first time, the AI would control them. I mean would play them.

That's my question. Why would you want the AI playing half of your empire for you? It just seems like something no one would want.

Well don't worry, you would have still something to do, a civilization to manage. Ultimately, you could even delete the "second emperor" and make this part of your empire under your control again. But you would not have the bonuses that come with this, it is to say great advantages like a better management of your empire, or here a unit cost divided by two, what can be a decisive advantage. Imagine you are attacked from all parts by barbarian civilizations. Then you split your empire and you can produce two times more units on your divided side, but the AI controlled part is allied with you, and can take a great part in the war too, with an enhanced production also. It can make the difference for sure.
Ultimately it would be a choice to do, you know, a kind of dilema, what does a gameplay. If this idea disgust you, nothing would oblige you to do so. (but you may lose the game!)
Ultimately it could be a solution for those who prefer and are better at management and diplomacy than at war: more units, but a chance to be definitely separated from an half of one empire.

Given how incompetent the AI governors are at running cities and automated workers, nothing would induce me to turn over half my empire to it's control. I don't see why there should be any advantage to splitting your empire in two, and certainly not something as huge as doubled unit production. I somehow doubt Rome doubled in strength after Constantinople was made a second capital. Fundamentally when I play a game I expect to play it, not to get the computer to play it for me. As for not being obliged to do it, this simply isn't true if it was added in, because of the overwhelming advantage it would give to the AI, I would have to use it to compete. There isn't a penalty from the AI perspective since all they're doing is deciding to call themselves two civs instead of one, for a nice big bonus. They don't have to worry about poor management as it'll be no worse than usual for them. There'd also be major issues with how you decide which bits of your empire went to the AI and which to you. What happens if your half is destroyed?

I'm sorry, but this idea would seriously harm the game for me. The solution for those who are better at diplomacy than war is to use that skill to avoid war in the first place.

MrCynical said:

Given how incompetent the AI governors are at running cities and automated workers, nothing would induce me to turn over half my empire to it's control.

Click to expand...

If the AI were so imcompetent, why would you fear it that much?

As for not being obliged to do it, this simply isn't true if it was added in, because of the overwhelming advantage it would give to the AI, I would have to use it to compete.

Click to expand...

Well, the AI would not necessarily use it. Anyway, that would be well balanced.

I don't see why there should be any advantage to splitting your empire in two, and certainly not something as huge as doubled unit production.

Click to expand...

About the balance, I have had an idea. The unit building would not be doubled ad vitam eternam. It would be limited in the time. So that the operation would be in fact a kind of credit on the risk or mortgage. You take the advantages now imediately, reduce the risk for being conquered or to fail in a war, but you raise the later risk of see your empire definitely splitted. That for sure would add some spice to the progression of your civ, and even content certain players who can't stand to see the things happen slowly.

I somehow doubt Rome doubled in strength after Constantinople was made a second capital.

Click to expand...

Sure it did not. But this is to represent the highest resistence to weakening and barbarians that this kind of administrative split is supposed to provide to the empire.

There isn't a penalty from the AI perspective since all they're doing is deciding to call themselves two civs instead of one, for a nice big bonus. They don't have to worry about poor management as it'll be no worse than usual for them.

Click to expand...

AIs does have their identities and are attached to their possessions, individualy. They would not concede freely half of their territory if there would not be a chance to retrieve it later.

There'd also be major issues with how you decide which bits of your empire went to the AI and which to you.

Click to expand...

I didn't think about that yet, but it should be feasable. Any idea?

What happens if your half is destroyed?

Click to expand...

You lose.

The solution for those who are better at diplomacy than war is to use that skill to avoid war in the first place.

Click to expand...

The one does not prevent from the other. Romans used their diplomacy to get rid of the German invasions.

If the AI were so imcompetent, why would you fear it that much?

Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting putting part of your empire temporarily under the control of the AI, with some risk of it becoming permanent. I do not fear the AI, but regard it as incompetent and not fit to run any part of an empire I have worked on. It's the same reason I don't automate cities, because the AI runs them badly.

AIs does have their identities and are attached to their possessions, individualy. They would not concede freely half of their territory if there would not be a chance to retrieve it later.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point here. For the human player the trade off is whatever bonus you give for splitting the empire, at the price of leaving it under the control of an idiotic AI (plus the risk of losing it completely, which is a separate penalty). For the AI, this first penalty does not exist, as all AI's are equally stupid. It is therefore a rule which is much more advantageous to an AI than a human player, and this shouldn't occur outside the difficulty level handicap.

The whole idea feels wrong from a gameplay point of view. If you don't award it a ridiculously large bonus no-one would use it, and if you did you are effectively being rewarded for deciding to do less management in the game. This goes against almost every other system, where the more care you take in managing it the better the results you get. The current system of reducing nearby maintenance with a second palace seems fine to me.

MrCynical said:

You seem to be suggesting putting part of your empire temporarily under the control of the AI, with some risk of it becoming permanent. I do not fear the AI, but regard it as incompetent and not fit to run any part of an empire I have worked on. It's the same reason I don't automate cities, because the AI runs them badly.

Click to expand...

I said that just because you seemed to fear the AI if it would have the same possibility of splitting. On one side you think it's too stupid, one the other side too advantaged. Choose one.

You're missing the point here. For the human player the trade off is whatever bonus you give for splitting the empire, at the price of leaving it under the control of an idiotic AI (plus the risk of losing it completely, which is a separate penalty). For the AI, this first penalty does not exist, as all AI's are equally stupid. It is therefore a rule which is much more advantageous to an AI than a human player, and this shouldn't occur outside the difficulty level handicap.

Click to expand...

Well I don't think this would be that a huge advantage to AI. I mean not that a big disadvantage for the human. IF AIs can threaten you in the game, they can threaten other AIs, isn't it? But if it reveals itself to be a real disavantage, the bonus should be bigger again!

The whole idea feels wrong from a gameplay point of view. If you don't award it a ridiculously large bonus no-one would use it

Click to expand...

The advantages should be exactly the same than the disadvantages, time included of course.

and if you did you are effectively being rewarded for deciding to do less management in the game. This goes against almost every other system, where the more care you take in managing it the better the results you get. The current system of reducing nearby maintenance with a second palace seems fine to me.

Click to expand...

I don't see a really good reason here. Plus I could argue that many people like me dislike micromanagement a lot.

Well I don't think this would be that a huge advantage to AI. I mean not that a big disadvantage for the human. IF AIs can threaten you in the game, they can threaten other AIs, isn't it? But if it reveals itself to be a real disavantage, the bonus should be bigger again!

Click to expand...

Let me spell it out. This setup gives the AI the bonus with less of the penalty than the human player. No rule except the difficulty handicaps should do this, regardless of how major the effect. As for it not being a big disadvantage to the human player, let me put it this way; if you can beat a level higher than noble it is a major disadvantage. You can beat the AI because you are smarter than it, and you are effectively throwing away the effects of this by making the switch. The AI is losing nothing by making the switch, since the other part of the empire will be controlled just as well (or badly) as it would be in any case.

Well I don't think this would be that a huge advantage to AI. I mean not that a big disadvantage for the human. IF AIs can threaten you in the game, they can threaten other AIs, isn't it? But if it reveals itself to be a real disavantage, the bonus should be bigger again!

Click to expand...

Any AI that understands how this works will always use it, so arguments about how the AI's interact will be fairly irrelevant.

The advantages should be exactly the same than the disadvantages, time included of course.

Click to expand...

The disadvantages are almost entirely dependent on how good the human player is. The better they are, the more they lose by handing over control. If you scale the advantages acordingly the AI should get virtually no bonus as it has no real disadvantage.

I don't see a really good reason here. Plus I could argue that many people like me dislike micromanagement a lot.

Click to expand...

Somehow I'd guessed you dislike micromanagement . Fine, many people agree with you, so why not come up with a suggestion to reduce that? This suggestion is basically removing about half of the management (and not just micro) from the game. The basic point is that in a game like Civ I expect to play the game, not be encouraged to have the computer play parts of it for me. I generally try to be constructive with my criticisms, but this makes no more sense to me than having a big button which shuts my empire down for 50 turns, but makes one of the AI's spontaneously disappear. This falls into the same category as mods to completely automate your military. You're no longer really playing the game, and adding arbitrary bonuses to encourage you to do this doesn't change matters.

I've said my piece now, and I don't wish you to think I automatically rubbish all ideas. It's just that this one really doesn't look good.

MrCynical said:

Let me spell it out. This setup gives the AI the bonus with less of the penalty than the human player. No rule except the difficulty handicaps should do this, regardless of how major the effect. As for it not being a big disadvantage to the human player, let me put it this way; if you can beat a level higher than noble it is a major disadvantage. You can beat the AI because you are smarter than it, and you are effectively throwing away the effects of this by making the switch. The AI is losing nothing by making the switch, since the other part of the empire will be controlled just as well (or badly) as it would be in any case.

Click to expand...

I say you that it's not a disadvantage, as the AI replacing you can handle the other AIs as well as the AIs handle with you. And you are playing against AIs, nothing more. You still have the control of the economic/lux/tech aspect, not to mention diplomacy. And after all, if this increases the difficulty level, what's wrong with that? It would be just "harder". But as I said nothing oblige the programers to allow the AI to do that in lower difficulty levels. I don't see what's wrong really, this AI thing is a little excuse.

The disadvantages are almost entirely dependent on how good the human player is. The better they are, the more they lose by handing over control. If you scale the advantages acordingly the AI should get virtually no bonus as it has no real disadvantage.

Click to expand...

The AI has the same disadvantage to see his territory splitted than you. And that, the AI, or more precisely, the AIs, don't want it. That's wrong to think that AIs don't do war against each others. You may argue that an AI isn't human and don't really care of it even if it is programmed in order to do so, but the fact is that there would only be potentially more AI units around. But so yours. It's the game. Plus it would simulate the barbarians uprisings when it's not Rome.
The disadvantages are: the risk to see his civilization splitted and lose 1/2 of his former empire. Of course the risk is not too high, but the consequences would be pretty heavy. It depends of the number of factors that can make the AI controlled part change and go away from the original, and of the links with the AI emperor. (good relations, religious shifts, etc..) That are the former disavantages. After this, the player can play.

Now I may reconsider the idea of half of an empire ruled by the AI. It's true, the AI does not play like a human. It "cheats", in order to catch up the human abilities. So indeed, the higher the difficulty level is, the more penalizing again it will be to split one empire. As the advantages would remain the same, it would make the deal unbalanced. Let's theorize like that. After all Civ does not really make the distinction between the rulers.

I suggest now that the empire after the second capital creation to remain under your control. But the risk is that it definitely split up and become another civilization, under culture and/or religious pressure. There is still the idea of mortgage/credit.

Sorry, putting half of your empire under the control of an AI with the possibility of this split being permenant is a very stupid idea.

Dida said:

Sorry, putting half of your empire under the control of an AI with the possibility of this split being permenant is a very stupid idea.

Click to expand...

Why? That's your comment which is stupid, with no arguments.

Naokaukodem said:

Why? That's your comment which is stupid, with no arguments.

Click to expand...

I just told you what is stupid. Clearly, most people here agree with me on this one.
btw: do you have the game? might do you well to play the game as it is before coming up with ideas.

That "people" agree with you here is not an argument.

Here go your argument:

[...]putting half of your empire under the control of an AI with the possibility of this split being permenant is[...]

Click to expand...

... not stupid, as you get bonuses while doing so.

Just as simple.