1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Capital Move Incentives

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Feb 28, 2019.

  1. LacsiraxAriscal

    LacsiraxAriscal Below Settler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    York and Manchester (UK)
    Something obvious that I don't think's been said yet is that the capital is very often the largest city, especially in the pre-modern era. This makes a ton of sense, both having the government located where most people are, and with the capital naturally becoming the largest city because of the opportunities that it creates. In any case, I wonder if capitals could give some kind of bonus that scales with population? Alternatively turn it into a malus, where a large population city in the core that isn't capital might create unhappiness/instability. I don't think this should apply to cities outside the core though, and I do think it should phase itself out in the modern era (as no one's seriously suggesting moving America's capital to New York, I don't think).
     
  2. Leoreth

    Leoreth Prince of Blood Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    34,486
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    House of Hades
    Don't the civic based percentage modifiers already do that, indirectly? The more population, the more base income of every yield to modify, after all.
     
  3. Enyavar

    Enyavar Prince

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    422
    That is a thing in Civ: Cities represent both cities (as major population centers) and also governmental regions (the tiles around the cities are like real-world provinces, with the city itself as the province administration center.). Actually, every single tile that was notable enough in real life to get a represention via a named tile in RFC/DoC, was the seat of a major provincial government center. The "customizable" thing is just that the player chooses one of his cities as the empire's capital; and this capital gets privileged treatment that usually lets it grow larger.
    So, it goes the other way round: Cities weren't chosen as capitals because they were largest, but they were largest because they were capitals.

    Okay. There has already been the comment that most historical capitals are inside the core. For the AI, that should be made a requirement (as long as a civ has a core city, said core city should be the preferred capital). I can think of five in-game examples where the RL civs intentionally moved their capital outside of the core. And all of them are already modelled perfectly in-game: RL Rome and Portugal moved the capital outside their core, which created an offshoot civilization (Byzantium/Brazil). RL Mongolia and Phoenicia moved the capital outside their core, and the core shifted/expanded. RL Macedonia moved the capital to Babylon, and collapsed into civil war soon thereafter.

    Since the AI rarely moves the palace intentionally, I think that your concern is humans playing ahistorically. I can think of two reasons for humans to do that currently: maximize tax income (which is not a historical reason, the whole distance penalty has some historical merit but is mostly a balancing factor against cherry-picking super-empires) and civ-blocking (very cheesy: you can obstruct spawns and block re-spawns by setting up your capital in foreign cores). Both of these reasons don't match real-world reasons. One of the most pervasive motivations is the increased reputation (and orderliness) of a brand-new, planned, megalomanical city. (Like: Beijing, Washington, Future-Egyptian-Capital, Brasilia, Dur-Kurigalzu, Naypidyaw, New Delhi, ...) or at least a re-organized, major-upgrade infrastructure project that whips the current capital up to speed.

    These considerations gave me three more ideas for a potential change, but I can't really know how they might harm the gameplay. They're not necessary related and can be implemented individually.
    • The seat of government is restricted to the core and historical area: no more foreign capitals. No change to the current mechanic for core area capitals. But historical area capitals increase the basic maintenance costs for the whole empire (penalty!) while also counting as an additional core tile (bonus). That measure is to stop human players from foreign-core-blocking, but is not railroading them with a "you can only build capitals in core". Players would still be able to move the Russian capital to Wladiwostok though.
    • A civ starting in late classical or in early medieval age has a "Palace III" in the capital. If they haven't built a "Palace IV" when Renaissance starts, they suffer economic penalties and/or there will be no expansion stability increase. I guess everyone gets the picture: Palace must be according to age, with better palaces enabled on age-progressing. This enforced re-building of better seats of government equals gradual modernization and governmental reforms, and is not meant to replace disruptive civic switches. It forces the civs to regularly re-evaluate whether or not the capital is currently sitting at the right place. More modern palaces would have increased building costs, but also a larger bonus per age. In 1.15, it's always the same basic bonus (+1 happy +2 culture +4 espionage) which could be modified a little bit. If the slowly increasing bonus and/or the building name depend on the current civics, that is even better. This idea pretty much favors the industrial center of the nation as the best place to quickly build a palace.
    • Major change for the administrative centers: On foreign continents, colonial maintenance costs are tripled unless an administrative center is present. Once per colonized continent, an administrative center can also be hammer-built, with half the cost on historical areas. Until an administrative center is built there, the government center (palace) cannot be moved to another continent. If combined with idea 1, this only affects colonial empires, I think.
     
  4. LacsiraxAriscal

    LacsiraxAriscal Below Settler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    379
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    York and Manchester (UK)
    Huh, been a long time since I micromanaged a Civ IV game evidently...:crazyeye:

    Theoretically you could add China to that list (the Republic of China/Taiwan). I also can't remember off the top of my head how big Arabia's core is, but the various Arab dynasties had capitals all over the shop, as far north as Harran and as far west as Cairo.
     
  5. Pedersen

    Pedersen Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    23
    Location:
    Cph
    I believe many discussions here are in the intersection between historical accuracy and gameplay.

    In regards to the historical aspect, I would argue that the modern concept of a capital with administrative offices etc first appears in the late 1600s. Prior to that it would be more precise to simply speak of "where the king held court", which obviously could and did move a lot around, as in the expression Reisekönigtum. Simply because Alexander the great spend his final years in Babylon, it would still be incorrect to say that "Babylon was the capital of Macedonia".

    In terms of gameplay, maybe a good way to express this would be - as others have pointed out to either delay the introduction of a capital, i.e. a palace building first becomes available in the late game, or there are several levels of palaces, i.e. a Palace I, Palace II etc.
     
    Jarlaxe Baenre likes this.
  6. bluepotato

    bluepotato Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    257
    I think even that'd be too much railroading, I mean if I've already colonized Peru as Greece then why can't I move my capital to there? Simply flip capitals too when not in core area, or at least allow building them in foreign area.
    Sounds a bit exploitable but also fun - there were some governments in exile before, so quite historical. But would that also mean that the Netherlands and other colonial empires practically couldn't be killed? Maybe this should be combined with the idea of having to build a new capital after your previous one was taken, and I think removing the "minimum 4 cities for palace" restriction would also be necessary.
    Entering to a new era already feels like a big step backwards in stability, your civics become outdated and you're more likely to collapse than before. I think it should be rewarded as entering a new era is kinda a big accomplishment, and not punished by stuff like that. Perhaps give newer palaces some economic benefits instead (more trade routes, commerce or stuff like that).
    Agreed, although tripled may be a bit too much. After all, colonizing should feel like it's at least a bit profitable, not something that you only do for the UHV.
     
  7. Force44

    Force44 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    The Low Countries
    Two ideas from a gameplay perspective for incentives to move the capitol.

    Certain wonders could have an additional effect in the capitol.

    eg. A great wall built outside the capitol city can be rebuilt in the capitol for protection of the territory which was not under cultural influence when it was first built.
    or A great library built outside the capitol city can be rebult in the capitol to yield an additional great scientist.

    An other incentive for relocating the capitol would be to let some citizens and/or great persons migrate to the new capitol.
     
    Jarlaxe Baenre likes this.
  8. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    How about: Capital movement by building Palace (not forced by a specific event or lose of original Capital) grants an instant stability boost that decays over time?
     
  9. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,681
    What if building a Palace was free once per game, and once per era under Elective? No bells or whistles.
     
    Oblivionyx likes this.
  10. bluepotato

    bluepotato Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2018
    Messages:
    257
    That still wouldn't give any reason to relocate it, maybe if you're running centralism which isn't compatible with Elective anyways. But another idea, combining some of the previous ones: how about making it so that the capital population would count as core population only if you're running Elective? Maybe it'd actually be used with the Mongols (I guess they and Holy Rome are supposed to use it). Currently the stability bonus with Monarchy (they're compatible with so many civics + happiness) and whipping with Despotism (you can massacre periphery population) completely overshadow the really low amount of bonuses with Elective (some bonus commerce).
     
  11. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,681
    I've had many games where I wished I could relocate my capital to a more commercially powerful city so as to better profit from Regulated Trade. If we wished to further buff relocations, perhaps we could look into things like this.

    From what I understand, Elective is designed to be a civic pick for nations- especially large ones- that are struggling economically. It is the only Low Cost Government Civic, grants +2 Commerce to two very common improvements, and makes unimproved tiles more economically profitable.

    Here's some brainstorming on Leoreth's 5 reasons:
    1) Having the capital in a central position that can easily administrate all parts of the empire
    • Current Distance from Capital Costs currently does this quite nicely
    2) Moving the capital closer to the border to better protect the border (e.g. late Roman Empire moving their capital to e.g. Cologne)
    • Capital exerts Zone of Control?
    • Units heal faster in the Capital?
    • Battles near the Capital yield more Great General Points?
    3) Moving the capital away from the border to keep it safe (e.g. the later Song)
    • Big Stability Malus for losing Capital if somehow not already included
    • -X Stability from having had battles (with Barbarians?) within Y tiles of the capital during the last Z turns
    4) Moving the capital away from its current city to assert independence from the current power center
    • Moving the capital hastens the rate of various forms of negative decay? (New Dynasty, "We will be better than our predecessors") (Relations, Razing, Lost Battles, Whipping, etc)
    • Actions that cause negative decay last X% longer for Y turns after moving the Capital? (New Dynasty, "The new government isn't what we were expecting") (Relations, Razing, Lost Battles, Whipping, etc)
    5) Change in dynasty / civil war results in the establishment of the winner's seat as the new capital
    • [In]Stability from Civic changes more severe in checks caused by moving the Capital
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
  12. Guillermo11

    Guillermo11 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2018
    Messages:
    15
    There are already incentives to have your capital near the center of your empire and in a powerful city (with civics).
    The other reasons I have seen (though I lack knowledge, correct me if I am wrong) are:
    1) Closer to a threatened border
    2) Away from an endangered position
    3) Away from a packed city.
    So incentives could be:
    1) Military logistic bonus: either lesser maintainance cost (no idea how to implement it though) or healing in/near the capital (as 1SDAN suggested).
    2) Stability penalty for losing the capital.
    3) Instability from unhappy/unhealthy capital.
    Still, that doesn't account for St. Petersburg, a coastal capital to increase maritime power, changing the capital to change the focus of the empire. Since capitals tend to be bigger, maybe a +2 food might help (so St. Petersburg makes sense to increase maritime production) starting in the clasical era to avoid changing early game too much, but it seems inadecuate. 25% extra land unit production in landlocked capitals and 25% extra water unit production in coastal capitals? Maybe the civic bonuses are already enough, though.
     
    1SDAN and Publicola like this.
  13. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,681
    What Civics would Russia be running around the time they moved their capital to St. Petersburg?
     
  14. h0spitall3rz

    h0spitall3rz Grand Vizier of Your Mind

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Messages:
    465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hanseong, Great Korean Empire
    This is the start of the Russian Empire. I'm guessing Monarchy, Centralism, Manorialism, Regulated Trade, Clergy, Conquest.
     
  15. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,681
    Oof, not much to work with there. Those civics are already really good, a water unit production bonus would either make them OP or wouldn't be a big enough incentive to move your capital to a coast.
     
  16. h0spitall3rz

    h0spitall3rz Grand Vizier of Your Mind

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Messages:
    465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hanseong, Great Korean Empire
    Peter the Great's main motivation in founding St. Petersburg and making it the new capital was that it is much closer to the rest of Europe than Moscow is, and it was just one step in his grand plan to reform Russian society and significantly Westernize it. (Remember the beard tax? :lol:) So I guess there can also be an incentive for trade with other nations and faster tech spread to the nation that moved its capital.

    The main problem with this suggestion, though, is that it is much exclusive to Russia, which is a special case in itself.
     
    Publicola and 1SDAN like this.
  17. Visard

    Visard Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    203
    Maybe Peter had many spies and extra espionage so he wanted to move the capital closer to more advanced civs,
    so he would be more effective for stealing techs from Sweden, Poland and Germany.

    Great generals could have ability to build palace in a core city,
    since they haven't got anything new unlike other great people.
    Also achieving 2/3 of UHV could give a free general which could be then used to move the capital.
     
  18. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    Would you really build a palace with your Great General?
     
    Dragonxander PR likes this.
  19. Force44

    Force44 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Messages:
    587
    Location:
    The Low Countries
    A perhaps more controversial suggestion would be to let your capitols bonuses deminish over time and perhaps even grow into penalties.

    example:

    "The people of [insert city name] are delighted with their new social status as inhabitants of the new [insert civ adjective] capitol!"
    (gives additional happiness)

    and after a certain amount of turns

    "The people of [insert city name] have grown snobbish with their status as inhabitants of the [insert civ adjective] capitiol and demand more entertainment!"
    (gives additional unhappiness)
     
  20. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    497
    That's what I suggested.
     

Share This Page