FP: location location location?

[anarres]

Sorry if this is an old topic here, but the search function won't let me search for FP (needs 4 letters).

I want to know how people place their FP's.

I used to not worry if they were not too far apart, even when the FP was built with a leader they would be built as quickly as possible instead of waiting for a further away location.

Now, I see location as being much more important. This is because I found out that both the Palace and the FP have a set number of cities around them that can be productive, and these are mutually exclusive.

For example, if the Palace has 24 cities that can be productive, the FP also can have 24 productive cities. These are calculated by distance from the Palace or FP.

The bit I only learnt a couple of months ago is that if the FP and Palace are far away from each other you can get 48 productive cities. If the FP and Palace are close together so there are 10 cities that are in the 24 closest to the Palace and are in the list of the 24 closest to the FP, then they will count in both lists, so the max. number of productive cities is only 38.

I have changed my playing style accordingly, but I am not sure when it is better to wait to send your leader to a far away place, and when it is better to build the FP closer, because you can do it many turns earlier.

How do people here decide? Are people aware of this in the first place?

 

[col]

I was aware of it. I've spent many a game waiting for my first leader as my FP took 100 turns to build by hand.


As you know the optimum number of cities is map size related.

 

[Reagan1984]

Great Question.
I just asked basically the same thing but in the context of corruption.

I hope you get some quality replies here.


Thanks

GB

 

[anarres]

col, where is the cut off point for you?

If you get an early leader, do you wait and build an army to go with him a start the 'new world', or do you use him to build an FP at the edge of your current empire?

I ask because I once waited 50 turns to build an army when I had a leader (the season 3 tournament game where we needed a spacerace victory). I get a very useful 2nd core of cities, but I'm not sure it was waiting the 50 turns.

If you remember the map - we were on an island with the palace right in the middle. It seemed to be crying out to send the leader away to form the FP. Still, I'm not sure it was the best option...

 

[Shabbaman]

Originally posted by anarres
I used to not worry if they were not too far apart, even when the FP was built with a leader they would be built as quickly as possible instead of waiting for a further away location.

My strategy is to built it as close to my capital as possible, as soon as possible. When you build the FP, a lower-corruption button is triggered, so corruption is lowered all over the empire. This strategy allows to move the palace, whilst keeping your core cities as productive as possible. Plus, your old capital, probably the most productive city, can prebuild wonders through the palace.

Besides that, you can better 'waste' a leader on the palace then on the FP, since the FP doesn't cost THAT much.

Originally posted by anarres
The bit I only learnt a couple of months ago is that if the FP and Palace are far away from each other you can get 48 productive cities. If the FP and Palace are close together so there are 10 cities that are in the 24 closest to the Palace and are in the list of the 24 closest to the FP, then they will count in both lists, so the max. number of productive cities is only 38.

By the time the farthest cities are too corrupt to do anything, you'll probably have a leader to build the palace over there. Besides, even if you don't have your FP close to your old capital, those core cities could have build courthouses and police stations.

To sum up my strategy:

-build FP next to capital ASAP
-move palace somewhere else if you've got a leader
-move it to the capital of a conquered empire, thus getting another core of core cities

 

[anarres]

@Shabbaman: do you ever try the palace jump to move the palace?

Edit: and is it really worth the 200 shields to buildthe FP next to the palace?

 

[Shabbaman]

Originally posted by anarres
@Shabbaman: do you ever try the palace jump to move the palace?

No. I think that's a form of cheating.

and is it really worth the 200 shields to build the FP next to the palace?

If you move your palace later, it is. You can build it really fast in a productive city. The benefit of the reduction of corruption is huge as well, so that'll probably compensate you for it.

 

[Darkness]

I usually build my FP in the (former) capital city of the first enemy civ I've conquered. I prefer to use a GL for this but if that's not possible I'll try to get the city in a "we love the king day" and use the extra production to build faster.... Since I'm a compulsive warmonger and I usually go to war immediately after I've finished expanding peacefully (end of ancient age, early middle ages) I'll get my FP fast enough to suit me.

 

[Gothmog]

I will try to get my FP as soon as I can, it makes a huge difference and that difference is cumulative with regards to culture (also 1000 year bonus), and other city improvements (getting a courthouse earlier gives more shields, getting library more science, etc.), as well as building units. If I get a leader early it usually goes for my FP, sometimes an army if I am being pressed. Then you can use another leader later to rebuild your palace if that is necessary. Usually though the only time I do that is if I built my FP 'by hand' due to no leader, and the location is in my first ring. If my FP is outside my second ring I will almost never move it. If it is in my second ring, it depends on map size to a large extent. The total number of cities I have factors in as well (obviously).

Also, I was under the impression that a city on both lists got corruption decrease from both sources. If I look at a city between my Palace and FP, and compare it to a city the same distance (from the closer of the two) in an external location, I think the internal spot has less corruption. Not sure about this, but that was certainly my impression. Any thoughts?

 

[Cartouche Bee]

Originally posted by Gothmog

Also, I was under the impression that a city on both lists got corruption decrease from both sources. If I look at a city between my Palace and FP, and compare it to a city the same distance (from the closer of the two) in an external location, I think the internal spot has less corruption. Not sure about this, but that was certainly my impression. Any thoughts?

I think that only one source effects the corruption (best case for the player of course) but those central cities may be picked up easier as a city under the OCN umbrella.

 

[anarres]

@Gothmog - Check out this corruption thread:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19922

 

[Cartouche Bee]

If I'm not happy where my palace was originally built, I start a FP early else I wait for a leader. If I produce a leader early in the game it would be a 'blue moon' if I used it for building an army.

 

[Gothmog]

Whoa, nice thread, thanks for the pointer. I don't think it will change my playing style though, maybe make me a bit more likely to do a palace rebuild. When I build my FP I rarely have twice the optimal number of cities (almost never). I do often have a few more than the optimal though, thus the large effect of the quick FP for me.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Shabbaman
No. I think that's a form of cheating.

Fair enough. I would never use it, but only because the jump seems a bit random. Some think highest culture city gets it, but that seems a bit too simple. I think size matters . Maybe someone has written about it on this thread - i'll go look.

If you move your palace later, it is. You can build it really fast in a productive city. The benefit of the reduction of corruption is huge as well, so that'll probably compensate you for it.

Please explain how the reduction in corruption is huge. If you build the FP in the city next to the Palace, then the change in corruption would be very small. IIRC, The corruption factor due to distance would be calculated to the nearest of Palace/FP, and close together = not much difference??

Edit: Info taken from corruption thread (with corruption calc) in above post.

 

[MadHatter]

Doesn't moving the palace during the game hurt a player's culture-producing potential because the palace is 1000 years old earliest and potentially is the greatest culture producer?

 

[Darkness]

Originally posted by MadHatter
Doesn't moving the palace during the game hurt a player's culture-producing potential because the palace is 1000 years old earliest and potentially is the greatest culture producer?

Yep! You have to start building up culture all over again with your new palace, so you loose the 1000 year bonus...

 

[Scyphax]

Moving the palace does affect culture but it will not be the largest contributor for me it is usally the Oracle.

However usually I decide at the start of the game what kind of win I am going for.
If I am going for a 20,000 culture points in one city win I generally have a much smaller number of cities than if I go for world domination and the location of both the FP and Palace are not that important.

If going for a domination then the location is important and the best place usually changes with time.
In fact the worst thing that can happen when going for a domination win is getting a culture win just before your vast armies are are about to take on your last major opponent.

 

[metalhead]

You don't have to worry about Palace jumping. Put your Palace in the absolute best spot you can find with your first leader, and leave it there. When you get your next leader, plop down a size 1 city in the optimal spot. Keep this city at size 1, building no improvements or anything - it is simply a "house" for your FP. When future conquests necessitate a new palace location, simply abandon your FP city, and build the FP elsewhere. You will only be losing a piddly little size 1 city, and the benefits to your empire are immense. This is a great way to gain benefits of the FP while making sure you can move it to a more optimal location after future conquests. This is better than relying on palace moves, because even with only 5-6 shields in a city, the FP can be built fairly quickly without a leader, and since you will likely be re-moving the FP after factories, etc, you can squeeze 5-6 shields out of all but the most corrupt cities.

 

[PersianImmortal]

where are u guys getting all these leaders .. i upgraded to 1.29f, played militaristic .. attacked with Elite units.. still no leaders

therefore I plop it down as soon as i have the option AND a city on a river.. no use waiting..

 

[anarres]

@MadHatter:
The 1000 years thing is minimal. For example, abandon Palace in before 250AD and the most number of culture lost is 1 per turn * 100 turns = 100 culture. Did you know that you keep the culture of a destroyed/abandoned city?

@Scyphax:
Check the F5 screen. There is never the need to win by culture if u keep your eye on it and disband temples, etc.

@metalhead:
What are you trying to say? It is not clear.

Put your Palace in the absolute best spot you can find with your first leader, and leave it there. When you get your next leader, plop down a size 1 city in the optimal spot. Keep this city at size 1, building no improvements or anything - it is simply a "house" for your FP. When future conquests necessitate a new palace location, simply abandon your FP city, and build the FP elsewhere. You will only be losing a piddly little size 1 city, and the benefits to your empire are immense.

????? Please rephrase so I can read it. Does Palace = FP? Does the FP city have an FP in it?

More detail needed.