FP: location location location?

[Gothmog]

The extra bonus of Killer's stratagy is the flip resistance confired by the capital. Nobody likes to have large cities with large armies in them flip. It also works well when you have a costal capital and can move the FP to a more central location (unlike anarres's game).

In the situation anarres describes I am not sure what I would have done either. The leader would have made a FP on my home continent very tempting. Then if I got another leader in the inevitable wars on the large continent, it might have gone for a palace. If I was militaristic then probably I would have rushed the FP right away. It's a harder choice with a non-militaristic civ. Probably I still would have rushed the FP, then built up infrastructure and troops for the invasion to follow. Or just built up infrastructure and gone for a few wonders, your home continent was plenty big to win the game with (IMO). But I do know if you are going for a high-score you want to maximize your size early, so in that case an invasion ASAP is called for. If you were ready to go, then saving the leader was most likely the right move. If you needed to build infrastructure and troops and navy, then I probably would have rushed the FP right away. Sometimes I like to win by other paths than conquest or domination.

Edit: I just looked at the spoiler thread: I guess Eric rushed the FP on the home continent and went for space race - I see you rushed the FP on the far continent and got a higher score than Eric - you finished earlier too. From the brief descriptions offered it was not clear to me just when you got the leader you rushed your FP with, nor why your game finished so much earlier. Although you were researching every 4 turns, I would need more info about the wars to be sure. Anyway, a fine win by both of you!

 

[anarres]

@Gothmog:
We both had to win by spacerace. I got my GL right at the end of my local wars on my island, and had the option to use it straight away.

I didn't get a second base on the main island because my civs were all at peace, and researching my techs nicely for me . Instead, I built it on the smaller island (in the top right of the map) as these civs were useless and tiny.

One deciding factor for me was that I wanted to get a tech every 4 turns, even in the modern age, and I got it from having a 2nd powerbase. I'm not sure I would have got it just from the first island, and the central palace clinched the decision.

Still, I'm not sure I did the right thing. I had to wait 50 turns or so before I had a big enough army to attack.

Of course the only way to check is to replay it from the moment I got the first GL, and IIRC, it took a long long time to finish that game...

 

[Bamspeedy]

Building your FP close to your palace will give you an early advantage and learn early techs pretty quick and get to libraries and universities sooner, but it lacks the power to learn late industrial-modern age techs every 4 turns. Placing the FP far away will probably cause you to learn early techs slower (due to it usually taking longer to get the FP built/rushed), but you will have that late game boost to learn modern age techs every 4 turns. So it is a bit of a trade-off.

Lt. Killer's idea is the best I think. You build the FP close to you where you will want one palace there permanetly, so you have the early advantage. Then rush the palace where you will want your other palace so you'll have the late game boost also.

This reminds me of those people who move their palace around multiple times (several times) to help develop unproductive regions. Once a city has every improvement the corruption doesn't seem bad because the factories, banks, libraries, etc. are multiplying the uncorrupted gold/shields. So when a region has most improvements built, they move the palace to a high corrupt region and develop those areas, then move the palace again and again. Sure by 2050 A.D. they may have a very impressive empire with low corruption, but I'm wondering if it really is worth the time and shields (or leaders) to move your palace so many times and all over the place? Certainly not if you are going for a fast victory, IMHO. But if you are just milking the game it may be worth it, I don't know.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Bamspeedy: I do that if circumstances make it viable, like when I go for a conquest win on an archipelago. Otherwise: no! As you said: not worth the shields.

 

[Gothmog]

Another thing I would add to the FP discussion. Sometimes I play games where I am not the superpower most of the game! I need the boost of the FP ASAP just to climb back into contention. Also, my empire is often rectangular or dumbell shaped due to necessity (my start + an ancient early middle ages war) - thus a second ring FP works quite well if built by hand - or a 3rd ring rushed with a leader. Timing is key, when will I be strong enough to conquer a strong opponent and become a superpower? Sometimes it's not until cavs or even tanks. In these cases a FP in the middle ages really helps even if I never move the palace.

 

[anarres]

I appear to be in a very small minority of people who tend not to build the FP close to home, then rush build the Palace elsewhere.

I'm going to use this method for a few games to see if the corruption decrease is worth the 200 shields outlay. That and the benifit of the Palace never flipping of course

Thanks again

 

[col]

Originally posted by anarres
I appear to be in a very small minority of people who tend not to build the FP close to home, then rush build the Palace elsewhere.

I'm going to use this method for a few games to see if the corruption decrease is worth the 200 shields outlay. That and the benifit of the Palace never flipping of course

Thanks again

Yes - I've been convinced by the arguments too. I'm gonna try some games over the next few days.

Its been a good thread with some good ideas on a common situation.