I'm still trying to get my head around all this, but I*think* it means that I only have to change a few things about my favorite playing style. Does this seem like a plan?
1. I like keeping my first core tight and having three tile movement between cities to allow rapid shifting of forces. I could never see the enthusiasm for OCS at that stage given the size 12 limit until late in the game. No change needed.
2. I like to build the FP in my first core. That gets it started earlier and built faster than waiting for a foreign capital to fall vacant and building there rather slowly and/or hoping for a great leader. No change needed.
3. I like to build a new Palace in a foreign capital once the FP is completed, preferably using a Great Leader. By this time GLs are more likely to arise, and I'm more likely to be in a position to take such a location.
I can continue to do this, but now I'll try to ensure that it is far enough away from my first core that all my core cities, and any local ones I've captured, are closer to the FP than to the new palace. Sounds like I need to be earlier and more aggressive with long distance/intercontinental wars. But that's true of my game as a whole, anyway. Lighthouse and/or Navigation become more important along with earlier development of the navy.
[I'd love to claim virtue in avoiding an exploit, but fact is the Great Palace Jump via an abandoned capital just seems too complicated for this bear of little brain. Also, I can seldom resist developing my capital, and I'd hate to destroy or sell off all those nice buildings and have to rebuild it from scratch.]
4. Instead of keeping the captured cities round the new Palace I should be more prepared to abandon those closest to it so that my FP-centered core has a lot of low rank cities. Up to now I've kept and developed all the captured cities, and given the AI's low density city placements even sticking to that may still not be too bad.
So maybe my "natural" playing style has actually exploited this bug inadvertently all along? If so the small changes I can make in future games would not be detectable as deliberate.
@Txurce: You suggest that the FP/Palace concept in Civ3 does not reflect historical development. I would beg to differ. Many civilizations have relocated their capitals at some point, sometimes more than once, usually retaining the ancient capital city as a cultural or religious center. The main inaccuracy in Civ3 is using the modern-day capital name for the 4000 BC capital.
1. I like keeping my first core tight and having three tile movement between cities to allow rapid shifting of forces. I could never see the enthusiasm for OCS at that stage given the size 12 limit until late in the game. No change needed.
2. I like to build the FP in my first core. That gets it started earlier and built faster than waiting for a foreign capital to fall vacant and building there rather slowly and/or hoping for a great leader. No change needed.
3. I like to build a new Palace in a foreign capital once the FP is completed, preferably using a Great Leader. By this time GLs are more likely to arise, and I'm more likely to be in a position to take such a location.
I can continue to do this, but now I'll try to ensure that it is far enough away from my first core that all my core cities, and any local ones I've captured, are closer to the FP than to the new palace. Sounds like I need to be earlier and more aggressive with long distance/intercontinental wars. But that's true of my game as a whole, anyway. Lighthouse and/or Navigation become more important along with earlier development of the navy.
[I'd love to claim virtue in avoiding an exploit, but fact is the Great Palace Jump via an abandoned capital just seems too complicated for this bear of little brain. Also, I can seldom resist developing my capital, and I'd hate to destroy or sell off all those nice buildings and have to rebuild it from scratch.]
4. Instead of keeping the captured cities round the new Palace I should be more prepared to abandon those closest to it so that my FP-centered core has a lot of low rank cities. Up to now I've kept and developed all the captured cities, and given the AI's low density city placements even sticking to that may still not be too bad.
So maybe my "natural" playing style has actually exploited this bug inadvertently all along? If so the small changes I can make in future games would not be detectable as deliberate.
@Txurce: You suggest that the FP/Palace concept in Civ3 does not reflect historical development. I would beg to differ. Many civilizations have relocated their capitals at some point, sometimes more than once, usually retaining the ancient capital city as a cultural or religious center. The main inaccuracy in Civ3 is using the modern-day capital name for the 4000 BC capital.
Maybe the order in which cities were founded if this is also registered by the game somehow.
