Capital Move Incentives

[Leoreth]

Recently there has been discussion about making moving your capital more attractive to the player and I thought it would be nice to put something like that into the game, so let's brainstorm.

First of all, the historical reasons for why capitals were moved I can think of are:
1) Having the capital in a central position that can easily administrate all parts of the empire
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)
3) Moving the capital away from the border to keep it safe (e.g. the later Song)
4) Moving the capital away from its current city to assert independence from the current power center
5) Change in dynasty / civil war results in the establishment of the winner's seat as the new capital

Point (1) is basically the only thing being represented in the game in the game via the distance to capital maintenance rules. You are theoretically incentivised to put your capital into a central location but usually especially for core cities it does not matter too much. Also even though there may be a slight economic benefit to doing so it's usually to expensive to build just for that.

An idea I had here is to make palaces 50% cheaper in cities that already have an Administrative Center, and receive an Administrative Center in the previous capital for free. This way it's easier to move between cities that already are government centers without losing buildings constructed by a GP.

Another aspect here is stability. Right now, moving the capital triggers a stability check. Maybe it should be changed so that if you intentionally move the capital your stability can only improve after the check. This would make moving the capital a possible way of dealing with bad stability.

An element here I am not sure about are civic effects that improve the capital only. I would assume that this usually means your capital is already in the best location to make use of these effects so you'd be reluctant to move it, but I would like to hear more feedback about these decisions.

Point (5) is kind of represented through collapse and respawn, however this somewhat a lost opportunity in that regard because for most civs there is a capital location coded that is always the same city. Not sure how important that is though because it only affects the AI.

Other than that, not sure if Palaces are too expensive in general, but I also don't want to make it too cheap. Any other ideas? Especially the military aspect of points (2) and (3) aren't really implemented in the game.

 

[Lone Wolf]

On the other hand, we wouldn't want it to be profitable for England to move its capital to Alexandria or Cape Town or for USA to move it to South Dakota or whatever. Capital moves are relatively rare in history. How many DoC civs actually did it? Russia, China, definitely. Maybe Western Rome, although the 3rd-4th centuries saw more of a multiplication of potential capitals than a capital move.

All other cases (Rome -> Ravenna, 5th century Roman Empire, Krakow-Warsaw, Toledo-Madrid, Kyoto-Tokyo) were usually between cities close to each other.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I'd like to find a way to make these capital moves within your core more attractive. Obviously that makes the most sense where the core is larger, e.g. China or Russia. Actually, talking about things that way it might be cool to make this a requirement for the core enlargement of some civs.

Conversely, there probably should be penalties for moving your capital outside your core. Right now there isn't really a downside for England in having their capital in Egypt, is there?

 

[Lone Wolf]

However, should England be incentivized to move capital to Manchester, or France to Bordeaux? I think incentivizing capital moves doesn't make much sense on current DoC map, and makes sense only for a few specific civs on the larger map. Reminds me of the "move your capital to X" decisions in EU.

 

[merijn_v1]

An idea I had here is to make palaces 50% cheaper in cities that already have an Administrative Center, and receive an Administrative Center in the previous capital for free. This way it's easier to move between cities that already are government centers without losing buildings constructed by a GP.

I think this could lead to some kind of exploid where you move your capital a couple of time to reduce overall maintenance. For example as England you could move the capital to your colony in America and then immediately back to London. You receive a free Administrative Center in you colony. You could even make some kind of loop (e.g. London -> Washington -> Cape Town -> Sidney -> London) get free Administrative Centers all over you empire, greatly reducing the "distance to capital" maintenance. If you do it thouroughly, you could even get an Administrative Center in all your cities.

 

[Leoreth]

That's true.

Edit: wait, I meant that only when you swap the capital to a city with Admin Center you get the Admin Center in the previous capital but lose it in the target city. The total number of Admin Centers in your empire should stay the same.

 

[merijn_v1]

That makes sense.

 

[Tigranes]

Yeah, I'd like to find a way to make these capital moves within your core more attractive. Obviously that makes the most sense where the core is larger, e.g. China or Russia. Actually, talking about things that way it might be cool to make this a requirement for the core enlargement of some civs.

Conversely, there probably should be penalties for moving your capital outside your core. Right now there isn't really a downside for England in having their capital in Egypt, is there?

Must be some stability penalty. In general your capital must be one of the cornerstones for stability of your empire. If your core is lacking palace -- this is not good. Pure and simple.

Maybe here is the good place to talk about automatic capital relocation during the fall of your original capital. This is not very realistic and goes all the way back to Civ1. If you remember it said "French government fled to Lyon!" Let's think about Paris for a moment. In 1914 and 1918 Germans fail to capture Paris. War carried on for 4 years. In 1940 Paris was the capital of entire French empire. After it was captured after only 6 weeks 3 things happen: 1) most of French core stayed under occupation, 2) Puppet capital and government was established in Vichy with most of the Empire accepting Vichy government 3) Great General established free France capital in London and parts of the empire gradually changed their allegiances. Of France's far-flung empire, only the Franco-British ruled New Hebrides condominium in the Pacific answered on July 20 De Gaulle's call to arms. It was not until late August that Free France would gain significant support in French Equatorial Africa.

Even Civ1 had it more realistic:

So I suggest incorporate capital change rules to allow 3 things to happen.

General rule: Palace cannot be built with hummers. One needs great General or Great Statesmen to relocate/reestablish the Palace.

1) Disallow free capital relocation upon the fall of original capital. Vae victis! Losers shall play without capital until they manage to establish new government center. Creation of capital outside of core must have strong stability penalty.
2) If other side is willing to capitulate -- they are getting free palace in the largest city of their core but stay as vassal of the winners.
3) The only time defeated nation is allowed to get a government in exile with quasi-free palace in one of their colonies is when defeated nation still has Great General/Great Statesman somewhere in form of a civilian unit, military uni, or settled specialist. Closest city to that unit or the city that has those specialist settled becomes new capital but the unit/specialist gets consumed.
4) Recapture of the original capital gives you free palace.

On that note -- relocation of capital during the peace time can also be accomplished only by the great person. It took Peter and Lenin to move Russian Capital.

 

[FraggleJock]

for point (2) if the BFC of the palace city was a Zone of Control or maybe even the cultural borders

 

[Enyavar]

Capital moves are relatively rare in history.

I can't believe someone says that.

Old Egypt relocated their capital over a dozen times. New egypt is doing it right now.

Babylon wasn't really ONE empire unless you count Sumer, Akkad and Aššyrians as babylonians - all of which had multiple capitals. Under Kaššites, Babylon's capital was moved away from Karduniaš (Babilis) towards Dur-Kurigalzu, intentionally. The Aššyrians and Šumerians also moved their seats of government several times.

The Greek (Makedonians, really) had no real capital, that means they moved it often. Alexander never ruled from Athens. Neither did the Mykenians in the archaic period.

Persia had several capitals, as did Iran before finally settling for Tehran around 1800.

China moved its capital all the time. Japan did so less often, but they did.

France had Versailles, which may or may not count here.

Mongols had several capitals. Depending on which period you are looking at it was in China, Karakorum or in the post-collapse horde states.

Indians, Mughals, Tamils, Thais and Khmer had several capitals, mostly upon dynastic changes (respawns) though. Now that I mention it, so did "the" Scandinavians.

Spain was governed from Madrid since 1561. Not earlier.

Lhasa stopped being the tibetan capital for 800 years until 1645.

Holy Rome never had a capital even when Vienna was seat of the elected monarch in the end period.

"Prussia" moved its capital from Bonn to Berlin in the 1990ies.

Brazil built Brasilia into the jungle. The former capital Rio wasn't the first capital either, but it was also the capital of Portugal once.

Pakistan has not existed for even 100 years but moved their capital twice already.
Canada changed their capital five times in the first 30 years of existence.

Is Turkey still ruled from Istanbul? The US still from Philadelphia? Arabia still from Mekkah? Don’t think so.

"Independent" civs also do this, E.g. several countries in Africa (Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Tanzania). Also Burma (Mandalay, more recently Naypyidaw)

While it IS historically a rare occurence that your country is moving the capital in your lifetime, it happens often enough in history to require a mechanic.
The list of playable nations that never moved their capital is pretty small:
I'd say: Aztek and... ??
England only counts, when it's founded in 1066, when London became officially the capital of the Norman conquerors.

 

[1SDANi]

I can't believe someone says that.

Old Egypt relocated their capital over a dozen times. New egypt is doing it right now.

Babylon wasn't really ONE empire unless you count Sumer, Akkad and Assyrians as babylonians - all of which had multiple capitals. Under Ka****es , Babylon's capital was moved away from Karduniash (Babilis) towards Dur-Kurigalzu, intentionally. The assyrians a d sumerians also moved their seats of government.

The greeks (makedonians, really) had no real capital, that means they moved it often. Alexander never ruled from Athens. Neither did the mykenians in the archaic period.

Persia had several capitals, as did Iran before finally settling for Tehran around 1800.

China moved its capital all the time. Japan did so less often , but they did.

France had Versailles, which may or may not count here.

Mongols had several capitals, depending on which period you are looking at it was in China, Karakorum or in the post-collapse States that lasted centuries.

Indians, Mughals, Tamils, Thais and Khmer had several capitals, mostly upon dynastic changes (respawns) though. Now that I mention it, so did "the" Scandinavians.

Spain was governed from Madrid since 1561. Not earlier.

Lhasa stopped being the tibetan capital for 800 years until 1645.

Holy Rome never had a capital even when Vienna was seat of the elected monarch in the end period.

"Prussia" moved its capital from Bonn to Berlin in the 1990ies.

Brazil built Brasilia into the jungle. The former capital Rio wasn't the first capital either.

Pakistan has not existed for even 100 years but moved their capital twice already.
Canada changed their capital five times in the first 30 years of existence.

Is Turkey still ruled from Istanbul? The US still from Philadelphia? Arabia still from Mekkah? Didn’t think so.

Non-game civs also do this, E.g. several countries in Africa (cote d'ivoire, Nigeria, Tanzania). Also Burma (mandalay, more recently naypidyaw)

While it IS historically a rare occurence that your country is moving the capital in your lifetime, it happens often enough in history to require a mechanic.

The list of playable nations that never moved capital is very small.

is Kassites blocked?

EDIT: Hmm, what was Ka****es supposed to be?

EDIT2: Kaysites? Nope.

EDIT3: I'm stumped. What caused the asterisks?

 

[Leoreth]

Which censored four letter word that is one off of ssit might it be? I assume it's a mix up with the Kushites.

 

[Publicola]

Japan did so less often , but they did.

Wasn't there an whole joke in Bill Wurtz's history of japan video about how often Japan's capital moved? (Just rewatched it, and there were more than one joke about this).

France had Versailles, which may or may not count here.

Ahem. I count 21 changes to the French capital, and the list doesn't even include Aachen/Aix-la-Chappelle as the capital of Charlemagne's empire.

Which censored four letter word that is one off of ssit might it be? I assume it's a mix up with the Ku****es.

Ah, the confusion between the Kassites and the Kingdom of Kush. Also easy to confuse with the Kushan Empire.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I can't believe someone says that.While it IS historically a rare occurence that your country is moving the capital in your lifetime, it happens often enough in history to require a mechanic.
The list of playable nations that never moved their capital is pretty small:

Point taken, but it's pretty hard to represent why Brazil established Brasilia, or why England "moved its capital" to London, but why no people in Russia think of moving the capital to Novosibirsk, or why nobody suggests the UK should move its capital to Birmingham. Potential ideas are the following:

Many capital moves (Brasilia, Abuja) were done partially to develop the more distant parts of the country. However, even a relatively nuanced take (move your capital to a distant place within your core, but with potential) would encourage American capital in the Great Plains, Russian capital somewhere in the fertile blackland European South once the nomadic raiders are cleared up, etc. Maybe some kind of bonus for the new capital, but a malus for the old one, so that people would think twice when doing this?

Another common motive for moving a capital is that the original is considered to be too squalid or overcrowded. I guess you could combine it with the previous idea (if your original capital has too much or , moving a capital to a different place within your core that has economic potential can give a bonus). Still, you could list exceptions to the issue (Victorian London - and many other industrializing capitals - was rather squalid and overcrowded, but I am not aware of any suggestions to move the UK capital away from it).

A potential solution to the issue above is some kind of "capital improvement" project, so that the player has a choice between moving the capital, or improving the capital already in place. The AI should usually pick the latter, to avoid Grand Industrial Revolution Capital Movements.

Moving your capital to a more defensible position (Petrograd -> Moscow, previous Imperial capitals -> Ravenna) is usually associated with stressful, bad periods for countries that did this. I am not sure this should grant any kind of boost, other than preventing the hit of losing the capital to independents or foreign invaders. If anything, this needs to be strengthened, but the time it takes to move the capital decreased. This should simulate it nicely.

Capital change on losing your original capital (most of "French capital changes" above) already happens in-game.

 

[Enyavar]

is Kassites blocked? What caused the asterisks?

I assume it's a mix up with the Ku****es.

I was on the train and went for a phonetic spelling on my phone, the post should be spell-checked now. "š" is pronounced "sh" in English. So, Kaššites look like šit to the forum. I wonder why the Aššyrians weren't blocked.

Um, for a mechanic idea: I also think that statesmen and generals (and merchants?) should be able to found palaces, thus moving the capital from the original place towards a new spot, but leaving behind an administrative center in the old capital. Building a new palace with hammers would then only be possible if the old palace is captured and no administrative center can take over the function.

Administrative centers could also be included in certain wonders, until they are obsolete: Hanging Gardens, Versailles, Potala Palace, Westminster Palace.

I don't think that there should be a penalty for having a palace outside of the core. The historical examples for that (Rome/Byzantium, Portugal/Rio de Janeiro, Mongolia/Beijing, Makedonia/Babylonia+Thebes, ) don't look too great, but Leoreth has mentioned the points 2) and 4). So maybe there could be a different bonus from the palace, depending on whether it's located in core, historical and foreign areas? Like, it could provide the best maintainance factor if sitting in the core, and have a maintainance penalty in foreign areas... But in historical and foreign areas, it might provide additional expansion stability; in historical areas it might give additional culture output, in foreign areas it might provide +1 Experience for new troops.

 

[1SDANi]

Oh, so this forum is just ignoring the sƈunthorpe problem then? Wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S****horpe_problem

EDIT: XD the sƈunthorpe problem wikipedia page got sƈunthorped

 

[TJDowling]

Oh, so this forum is just ignoring the sƈunthorpe problem then? Wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S****horpe_problem

EDIT: XD the sƈunthorpe problem wikipedia page got sƈunthorped

This is an interesting discussion. The incentives need to be pretty good I think but targeted. I just played Russia and really wanted to move my capital appropriately but didn't want to be punished with wasted time so I just WB a Great Engineer to hurry production... I mean, I know changing capitals requires time/production but you really gain nothing from doing it except historical accuracy.

I think there wouldn't be much use changing your capital from Paris to Bordeaux or London to Manchester with the above parameters anyway considering it wouldn't put you much closer to the center or further from a border than any other given core city. They are very small (I guess this will change with the big map). Bigger civs it probably doesn't matter as much because the rest (at least ancient civs) tend to have so many different dynasties with differents centres of power that it's probably okay wherever the capital pops up.

The bonus just needs to be made such that it doesn't remain past building an additional new palace and that it does more than just boost the current capital's output.

What current benefits does a capital have, without civics? Perhaps a Palace could boost defence/offence within a certain number of tiles making it so that if you place it near a border you get a war advantage in cross border conflicts? Moving your capital away from the border to protect it is just an inherent benefit but then would add the counter-benefit of having it near the border. Increased cultural influence, increased military strength in border regions.

 

[Leoreth]

The only advantage to its city, without civics, is the +1 wonder slot.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I think there wouldn't be much use changing your capital from Paris to Bordeaux or London to Manchester with the above parameters anyway considering it wouldn't put you much closer to the center or further from a border than any other given core city.

There were suggestions, however, to incentivize this sort of thing, based on historical cases like Warsaw -> Krakow. This has the potential to be misguided.

Regarding Russia, a fraction of Decembrists, the liberal noble rebels on the first XIX century quarter, actually suggested moving the capital to Nizhny Novgorod.

 

[Leoreth]

I get your concerns about setting the wrong incentives, but the whole point of the thread is to find incentives that motivate historical as opposed to ahistorical behaviour. Before adding mechanics that incentivise ahistorical behaviour I would rather not add anything at all.