Disbanding Capitol?

[USMC]

If I understand this correctly, I can disband whatever city has my capitol in it and the palace will be rebuilt in the next city I build?
If so, do I have to build the new capitol on the same turn to prevent the computer from picking the new capitol for me?
This could be useful in a cultural battle, but I can't test it because I have uninstalled Civ3 and given the disc to my girlfriend to hide, so that I don't flunk out of school (see my poll).

 

[billindenver]

No. From what I've read, the capital 'usually' moves to your next largest city, although it may also move to your most cultural city.

It will automatically move somewhere, without you building it. But it appears that it isn't totally reliable as to where it will go.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Why would you want to disband your initial capital? It'd still be good as a normal city, since you'd probably have some infrastructural stuff in it by now.

 

[Catt]

It still seems to be a bit of a mystery as to which city inherits the palace -- usually seems to track the high-population cities, but others have clearly shown a lesser-pop city becoming the new capitol. But the palace appearence will occur right away -- it won't wait for the next city you build.

If you are attempting to use it in cultural battles, I think you need to focus on manual palace builds or GL-inspired rushed Palaces -- a palace relocation for "cultural warfare" comes at a steep price of losing the power and improvements of the current capitol city, especially if you cannot be certain as to where the new palace will spring up.

Knight-Dragon: Many people will disband their capitol city early in the game in order to position their capitol in a more strategically valued location - for example more centered in a land mass allowing for less corruption than say a coastal location would provide. I have only used it in the very early game -- if I know I am going to perform the "palace jump," I will build nothing but settlers, workers and military units in the city (so nothing is "lost" when the capitol is disbanded. I make sure my "taget capitol" is the largest town (probably by adding workers to the town) and make sure it has a temple, library or other cultural building completed. I disband the capitol by building a settler at 2 pop with no food surplus -- a pop-up comes asking do I want to disband and I answer "yes." The city disappears, a settler appears, and (hopefully) the palace jumps to the target city. The settler can then be used to rebuild the city in the original capitol's location. By employing this tactic, you are essentially (1) paying 30 shields and 2 pop-points for a new palace (settler), (2) foregoing building early improvements in the original capitol for some period of time, and (3) taking a chance on where your new palace will find a home -- the alternative is to manually build a new palace (much more than 30 shields, generate and use a GL for a palace relocation, or live with a less-than-perfect palace location.

 

[Mad Bomber]

The Only use I have for disbanding my capital is in the early game and my initial capital is in an inferrior position (on a pininsula or coast) so I build my second city where I need the capital, build a settler with the capital and abandon/Found in same turn. In essence you have just moved your capital for the cost of a settler

 

[Grey Knight]

Wouldn't you benefit waiting to jump the palace until you've run out of places to expand? Otherwise, you're putting yourself 1 settler behind in outward expansion.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[TheNiceOne]

Catt: Very good explanation, but I have a few comments: You don't really loose any pop points. The two pop-points from your disbanded former capital is instantly regained when you rebuild the city with your new settler. You also gain the possibility of a better placement of the city, as the first city is usually settled instantly. What you lose in addition to what you mentioned, is the age of the palace - it will take many more turns before the new palace generates two culture points. Not a big deal though.

Grey Knight: No, because:
1) You're not really setting you one settler behind since you can rebuild a city instantly. You're not setting yourself more behind than the 30 shields cost and time for building the settler.
2) Getting the palace into a more central position means less corruption, and increasing effective production from 2 to 3 shields in a few cities early on can be really important.

 

[Mad Bomber]

Gray Knight:


The Nice One summed up the benefits perfectly so I will add one more note to it: Disbanding your capital gives an advantage only in the early years when you have little or no improvements invested in your capital. after a temple + library + mp you would be better off just moving your palace through building. Also using this in the early game allows the future palace to be able to get the x2 bonus in culture (although like TNO said its not that big of a deal) I have never actually used this tactic but I would if I deemed it necessary (read about it a succesionist game and it worked wonders)

 

[TheNiceOne]

Ouch, I must give Grey Knight some credit after all, as I was wrong on the population point, and he was partly right.

You do loose one population point when disbanding the city to a settler, since the settler comes from 2 pop points and creates a pop 1 city.

You can of course disband the capital by building a worker when the city is size one. This has actually the potential of being better, because you don't lose any pop points, and you don't waste any production, because you will need workers anyway.

Of, course, if you want a new city in the same place, then you'll have to produce that settler somewhere, wasting 1 pop point and 30 production.

 

[MSGT John Drew]

here's something you could do...

in your c:\windows\hosts file add in the following (or create a hosts file *no extension*)

127.0.0.1 civfanatics.com
127.0.0.1 www.civfanatics.com

now if you can just prevent yourself from ever messing with the 'hosts' file you'll be denied access to civfanatics. (empty the cookies folder first)

100% recovery from civ-addiction should then be possible.

ps. keep adding websites you want to deny yourself access always predicating with the 127.0.0.1

e.g.

127.0.0.1 www.apolyton.net

 

[RufRydyr]

ummm Drew, did you mean to post this somewhere else? Just a bit off topic.

 

[RufRydyr]

I like to palace-jump in the early stages, because the capital does so much for corruption/waste reduction. Placing the capital (and the FP) properly really adds to the strength of your civ.

For the longest time, whenever I disbanded my capital it would appear in the next largest city. 2 games ago I was playing on Deity and it jumped to a city beside the old abandoned capital. That city wasn't the biggest and it didn't have the most culture. I disbanded it and again the capital moved to an unexpected spot. i tried it one more time and then gave up. There seemed to be no reason for where it appeared. I was pissed!

 

[MSGT John Drew]

If you read his poll RufRydyr, USMC was actually having difficulty passing college due to Civ3.

that, I think, is even more important than his question on disbanded capitols.

to hell with Civ3 if you're failing your future! screw it! stay away! STAY AWAY!

 

[RufRydyr]

Originally posted by MSGT John Drew
If you read his poll RufRydyr, USMC was actually having difficulty passing college due to Civ3.

that, I think, is even more important than his question on disbanded capitols.

to hell with Civ3 if you're failing your future! screw it! stay away! STAY AWAY!

I disagree. Civ3 is the most important thing in the world!!! More important than food. More important than sleep. More important than sex. Well ok, civ3 is the second most important thing in the world!

Just kidding. But, Civ3 is pretty important.

I missed the poll. Where is it?

 

[RufRydyr]

Btw, I've been to 2 colleges and still don't have a degree yet, but I'm a great civ3 player. Is there a correlation (sp? oh well, who cares)?

 

[MSGT John Drew]

Originally posted by RufRydyr


I disagree. Civ3 is the most important thing in the world!!! More important than food. More important than sleep. More important than sex. Well ok, civ3 is the second most important thing in the world!

I bet 90% of civ'Fanatics' feel that way. even me sometimes

 

[USMC]

Thanks for the tip MSGT. I am already getting the shakes without my Civ3 dose, but I think it would really be a disaster if I couldn't at least come here and talk about Civ3. I am hoping that I can catch up with my schoolwork before PTW comes out. I fear that my cravings will overpower me when that comes out.

Also, RufRydyr, in my experience there is definitely a correlation between time spent playing Civ3 (or other games) and one's grades.

 

[USMC]

P.S. RufRydyr, the correlation isn't a good one.

 

[Grey Knight]

I think that perhaps map size may play a part here. I generally play on smalle maps, where you can only found 8 or so cities before you run into the borders of another civ. If I use the settler to re-found the capitol when my rival uses that settler to found a new city, I will end up with 7 cities to his 9. On larger maps, where you're founding 20 or so cities, it's not as significant if you loose a city. If you indeed lower corruption with the move, I can see where you'll probably end up ahead.

My assumption is that when disbanding the capitol, it is isolated and off to one side. Instead of re-founding a city in territory I already control for the most part, I'd rather found it where I can take land away from a rival!

Oh, and you'll loose 1 pop point doing this. The settler takes 2 to build, and the new city has 1 when founded.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Catt]

You are all correct in that it technically doesn't cost two pop points because one comes back upon founding. Thanks for the correction .

Catt