Capital Move Incentives

[IIHAAETTEAAHII]

What about

1. Giving minor bonuses to the capital building in order to incentivize it to build it in your largest city (+10% to every yield, for example)
2. Letting Palace hammer cost scale with age, and number of palace changes already made
3. Allowing a free civic change after construction

?

 

[1SDANi]

What about

1. Giving minor bonuses to the capital building in order to incentivize it to build it in your largest city (+10% to every yield, for example)
2. Letting Palace hammer cost scale with age, and number of palace changes already made
3. Allowing a free civic change after construction

?

10% is a massive bonus. Maybe 5%? 1%?

 

[Leoreth]

5% bonuses are for C2C

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

+0.25% Commerce for every Core tile with an improvement that had at least one battle fought on it, with an additional +0.01% added per unit level of your own units in those battles.

 

[Leoreth]

Now we're designing an MMO

 

[Enyavar]

In short, we want players to not be punished for moving the Palace, but (slightly) rewarded. But we also don't want to move the Palace all the time, so the reward may not be too big, and players also shouldn't be punished for not moving the Palace when there is no sense in doing that. So I think there is a certain charme in "renewing" the palace in your OLD capital, as well. Which brings me back to civic changes. They are a good reason for moving/rebuilding palaces: You switch from tolerance/meritocracy to secularism/constitution? Surely you need to reform the Palace as well.

How about:
When you switch civics, the old palace loses all bonuses (becomes obsolete). You need a new palace for these bonuses, especially for all civic effects that benefit the capital (from the civics Centralism/Redistribution/Colonialism etc) which should be tied to the palace.
Any civic mix with "Electorate" in it is exempt from the rule above: They never lose the palace bonus.
Not having a (new) palace gives you -1 stability in all five columns, while having a new palace gives you +1 stability in all columns. That bonus effect lasts only for five turns.

Of course, players will want to prepare for their civic switch. So either it is allowed to start building a palace; but you cannot finish the build with a valid palace existing. And maybe palace-building is possible even during revolution? So, the new capital where the revolution takes place, actually gets to do something useful during revolution?

And I am still in favor for renaming "palace" with proper names that reflect the civic. "Government House", "Senate", "Council Hall", "Palace".

Moreover, I think we already had lots of good suggestions on previous pages. The newest ideas are not necessarily the best.

 

[catacau]

I don't know if anyone has suggested this but what about the effect be relative to the stability of the civ?
Let's say a civ is struggling with military stability, so building the palace would give some bonus to his army or a royal guard (which would be just a normal current era unit and couldn't be upgraded but with good promotions) .
Or he's having problems dealing with expansion, jails would be built in the nearest non-core cities.
Or is having problem with the economy, the new capital get all resources automatic improved and cottage/hamlets pops up.
Or domestic, gets a free change of civic or religion.
Or external relations, gets a diplomatic boost with the civs close to the new capital.

 

[JHLee]

I don't know if anyone has suggested this but what about the effect be relative to the stability of the civ?

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?

Also if this was to be implemented, the stability boost should have a cap so you can't get infinite stability from moving capitals all the time.

 

[Publicola]

Also if this was to be implemented, the stability boost should have a cap so you can't get infinite stability from moving capitals all the time.

I think catacau was suggesting that, rather than having the new palace bonus affect stability, the bonus should be based on stability.

Low military stability = "bonus to army or royal guard" (free unit? free promotion for units fortified at new capital? free XP for units built at new capital?)
Low expansion stability = free jails in non-core cities
Low economy stability = new capital receives free improvements for all resources (and/or free upgrades for all cottages/hamlets in BFC)
Low domestic stability = one turn without anarchy, to change civics and/or religion
Low diplomatic stability = "diplomatic boost to civs close to the new capital"

I really like most of these ideas, but a) I expect it'd require a lot of work on Leoreth's part to set up, and b) there are way too many moving parts to explain in a tooltip to players. Also, I'm pretty sure that it is by design that the stability mechanic only has inputs and no outputs -- there are many elements in the game that affect stability, but stability itself only really affects whether your civilization collapses. Turning that system into 'things affect stability and stability affects things' would be a significant change in the game's design philosophy, so I'm not sure if Leoreth would go for it.