Do you ever move your capital during the game?

[ZeekLTK]

You can build the palace in any city to turn that city into your capital, although I find myself NEVER doing this.

Was just wondering if anyone does, and what the reason might be. I guess it would probably make sense to move the capital to a more central location to reduce the cost of maintenance (if you founded your city on a coast and then only expanded in one direction for example), but it still seems like a lot of hammers to use (that could be used on something else) that I'm not sure if it'd be worth it.

Do any of you guys ever move your capitals?

 

[Drakarska]

I've only done it a couple of times, and both times early game ( pre- medival). The only reason I did that was city placement spot was insanely awesome to warrent it.

 

[strijder20]

Yes, for bureaucracy.
The maintenance can be tens of gold per turn, definitely making it worth the move, but that's only the case if your empire has a weird shape for some reason. Your capital is usually in the centre of your civilization.

 

[lymond]

I moved the Palace many times. Ideally your start location is well suited for a Bureau cap (think lots of riverside cottages. However, that is not always the case. I good example are high food coastal starts in which the city is better suited as a GP farm (NE). If I find a better location for a cottage capital I will try to set it up for this before CS arrives. Another example is a start that is more production focused...maybe better for HE or general production.

Palace is really not that expensive to build once you have the target city improved. A few mines and a couple of Maths chops should get it up quickly.

 

[AdamCrock]

I moved the Palace many times. Ideally your start location is well suited for a Bureau cap (think lots of riverside cottages. However, that is not always the case. I good example are high food coastal starts in which the city is better suited as a GP farm (NE). If I find a better location for a cottage capital I will try to set it up for this before CS arrives. Another example is a start that is more production focused...maybe better for HE or general production.

Palace is really not that expensive to build once you have the target city improved. A few mines and a couple of Maths chops should get it up quickly.

That would make a perfect sense in Your "tech central" capital strategy It is a good one, I've tried it and it works like a charm. I would move my capital in purpose to build wallstreet and oxford there when I meet the requirements (and it's a good riverside-cottaged site - planned ahead for that purpose), It is also good to employ bureau-slavery + "HE+GT" (aka. "Heroic Theatre") strategy to for military sake in "previous" capital

 

[Robo-Star]

Do any of you guys ever move your capitals?

I did so for the first time earlier this week, going for a cultural victory.

 

[lymond]

I would never build HE and GT in the same city. Totally counter-intuitive.

 

[Windsor]

I would never build HE and GT in the same city. Totally counter-intuitive.

Heroic Theater is not bad at all, and very fun. You should definitely try it out.

Bur+HeroicTheater = 75 hammmers per pop = 2 pop cavalry with no happy penalty.

 

[lymond]

Bur+HeroicTheater = 75 hammmers per pop = 2 pop cavalry with no happy penalty.

I'd rather have GT city as a secondary units pump (whip/draft) and my HE city pumping out Calvary every turn. Much better use of hammers and each NW. Splitting those cities is going to get you many more units much faster.

Whipping HE city is very counter-productive except maybe early game HE city when base production is low and cities are small, when whipping is more optimal.

A Bureau HE city can be a good thing is strict war games, but since such a Bureau cap is set up for max hammers, whipping units should be unnecessary and a waste.

GT city should be almost exclusively food.

 

[calibur]

Ooh a NE, GT high-food coastal capital with caste & beareucracy.

 

[lymond]

Ooh a NE, GT high-food coastal capital with caste & beareucracy.

I don't really see a huge benefit of that setup. For one, you can't build Ox there nor would you want to except maybe in an SE. Bureau serves no benefit in such a low commerce/low hammer city...only thing it boosts is the trade routes. Furthermore, I generally don't like NE an GT is the same city except in culture games or obviously OCC. Otherwise, GT pollutes the already polluted pool but more importantly is counter-intuitive to have GT (whip/draft) in a city that should be running specialists constantly. For that matter, GT makes no sense in a Bureau cap.

 

[Fippy]

Globe Theatre use is very limited in standard games, because if you whip that much you usally end with only working your 2 or more super food tiles (if your city is really really good) after some time and whip away everything else, and for that unhapiness can usually be covered easily.
Same for NE, you will not grow super big or should not even with these food tiles if you use many specialists. These hammers can usually be spent better for standard buildings.

 

[GKey]

Whipping units in HE city net insane food - hammer conversion, however often you make HE in hammer reach city and try avoid whip there. GT then goes in food reach city and compensates for luck of hammers. This way you have two good unit producing cities instead of one.

 

[Mec AntiKythera]

A -perhaps temporary- move of the capital to the IW city for hammer intensive projects, wonders, or SS parts isn't out of the question depending on research needs.

 

[lindsay40k]

If you build GLH and your weak neighbour builds Artemis in the delta of a valley of flood plains, you'd be a fool not to.

 

[Quintillus]

Does it count if I unintentionally moved it because I had too weak of defences and the barbarians temporarily took my capital? That's the case that comes to mind when I've moved my capital.

I can see other cases where it would make sense maintenance-wise... start on a coast, keep expanding east/west, and your empire ends up with the capital at one end. But I'm not sure I've ever actually moved it intentionally in such a case. I'm too casual of a Civ4 player to move it just for bureaucracy.

 

[lowreyj]

Moving your cap can also make strategic sense if you run a lot of spies on espionage missions, since they return to the capital city after each mission.

 

[rah]

I don't do it often but it's usually when I have a crappy commerce start and the civ that I rushed had a NICE cap.

 

[Smilingrogue]

Lymond makes excellent points and I move the cap often for reasons he stated. (Better cottage site for a bigger Bur bonus).

One out of the box reason I moved the cap was during a Lonely Hearts Club game. (A series focused on isolation starts in Strategy and Tips forum). I was gunning for a space victory and having been isolated most of the game, I was naturally the weakest Civ on the map. I got dragged into an AP war with a very powerful civ just one turn away by Destroyers to me. I moved the cap from the coast to the interior to avoid a sneak attack capture and loss of my ship.

 

[civvver]

I absolutely do if I am on a smaller island and conquer the mainland to avoid excessive colony costs. Otherwise I generally don't. Usually capital starting sites are the best ones on the map. And even if your capital is on the edge of your empire forbidden palace can fix your maintenance costs. It takes a very special situation for me to move it.

Oh and historically I think the US continental congress moved from new york to philly to DC after the revolutionary war (can't remember if there was a stint in boston). So moving capitals is not unprecedented!