How often do you move your palace?

[Tasonne]

Hey CFC community, hope everyone is doing well. So I am a long time Civ 3 fanatic and consider myself a decently skilled player. Recently I was playing a match where I moved my palace and it got me wondering, when is it really worth it to do?

With the sheer volume of shields it takes, it is ever really worth it to move your palace? How often do you do it?

To me, it seems like it would be a decision I would only make as a last resort. When my palace is in an alright spot, but there is a clearly more central and higher production town nearby, that will even be able to build a palace in a semi reasonable amount of time.

I think partly depends on your map size. On smaller maps it's surely redundant.. But on a lot of the huge maps I have played recently, it seems like there is almost always a much better more suitable location nearby.

I wonder how early would it need to be completed to really have a positive effect on the overall outcome? Does it really help that much or is it counter productive?

Does anyone have any insight? I didn't try to do research yet. I thought maybe it would be an interesting subject to start a conversation about

 

[Jivilov]

Never done it myself. Only sense it would seem to make is if your original capital and core is in poor terrain or something. Maybe if you've somehow conquered a Continent despite such drawbacks and the prospective new capital already has a Courthouse, Marketplace, some Civil Engineers or other productive assets and surrounding settlements look promising as the new Core. Otherwise why bother?

 

[tjs282]

With the sheer volume of shields it takes, it is ever really worth it to move your palace? How often do you do it?

In general, it's only rarely a useful tactic:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/conquest-01-saves-are-now-available.89805/page-4#post-1887523

But there are a couple of good stories here on CFC, where a Palace-jump was used effectively:

"Recovering from Last Place..." (Huge Regent PTW game; rationale for the jump does not apply in C3C)
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ace-after-expansion-phase-step-by-step.77319/

"Gandhi on the Rocks" (Large Monarch C3C game; infertile island start)
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gandhi-on-the-rocks.611443/

That said, I've done it once accidentally (I couldn't remember if MGLs could rush the Palace in C3C, so wanted to test it — but having discovered that it was possible, I went and clicked the "Hurry improvement" button by mistake ).

I've also rolled a few games with tiny/infertile/remote island-starts where I really wanted to move my Palace, but played too inefficiently to make it happen before the AI-Rifle+Cav invasions began.

Most of the time, though, I'll prefer to use the Palace as a Wonder-prebuild.

To me, it seems like it would be a decision I would only make as a last resort. When my palace is in an alright spot, but there is a clearly more central and higher production town nearby, that will even be able to build a palace in a semi reasonable amount of time.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, gameplay-wise. If the prospective new Capital can hand-build the Palace in a timely fashion, then that town is likely close enough to the original Capital that you would likely be better off putting those shields into something more useful.

e.g. the FP-plus-a-Courthouse (200+80 shields) will always cost less than a new Palace (300–1000 shields, depending on the current size of your empire). If you did that instead, it will boost your empire straight off — and if you decide later on in the game that you still want/need to move your Palace (e.g. to a captured AI town which has much better land, or commerce/research-boosting Wonders like Colossus, Cops or Newtons), you can do it at that point.

But Palace-jumps to more remote/corrupt locations are best accomplished by 1-turning the Palace in the intended town, either by using a convenient MGL (usually easier if at war), or by deliberately destroying your original Capital (usually easier if at peace). The latter method will cause your Palace to be instantly rebuilt in your largest and best-guarded town, so requires some preparation to ensure that happens in the intended location.

Spoiler The most optimal way to accomplish that :

Shrink the original Capital (and maybe also your other large core-towns) — ideally by cash-rushing Workers/Settlers out of them, to preserve those pop-points — until they are all smaller than the intended town. (If the new town has Shakespeare's or a Hospital, and/or you have a direct sea-route/ rail-link, some of those rushed pop-units could/should also be added to the new town). To ensure that the intended new Capital has the largest garrison of all your towns, move most/all garrisoned units out of your 'old' towns temporarily, and move all spare military-units into the new, on the turn when you intend to disband/abandon your original Capital.

If you want to keep a town in the original Capital-location, the last unit you build out of it (at Pop2 if Agricultural; otherwise Pop1) should be a Settler, with that town's last citizen(s) set to harvest zero or negative food on the turn when the shield-box is filled. Over the interturn, when the Domestic Advisor duly complains that your old Capital does not have enough population to build that Settler, you tell her to disband the town — then you use that Settler to immediately rebuild on the ruins.

 

[Quintillus]

Almost never. It's happened accidentally a couple times, e.g. set a wonder prebuild, a war breaks out, don't wind up researching the tech for the wonder as a beeline to Military Tradition is more important, forget that there's a prebuild going on, at some point a Palace is completed. I think I've done it once or twice when my capital was captured as well, to restore the Palace to its proper location. But that's usually an early game thing, is somewhat more symbolic than practical in half of cases, and often I'd just leave the capital at the new location anyway.

An MGL rush could make sense, but in practice I find myself MGL rushing the Forbidden Palace. Too risky to move the main Palace, as the new area may be less productive, in large part because it likely has less developed infrastructure (libraries/marketplaces/etc.), although I suppose Civ Assist II may be helpful in confirming if it would make sense or not.

 

[Theov]

the Age of Conquest scenario. Move the capital to the New World to cash those treasures.

 

[Tasonne]

When you guys talk about using it for wonders, things like that in the game for me are a little like cheating. Or like loopholes. I purposely don't use those in a lot of games they're in. I'll give you another example. If you are doing a long line of irrigation to an area, later you can cut off the irrigation and there's no penalty. Of course, me being the player that I am I can never do this lol. I make the game harder for myself like this, or I add extra challenges.

That's not to say that I've never done it. For a long time I would start a barracks or something in anticipation of pottery but I haven't been doing that lately..

On the subject of MGLs, that's something I haven't thought of. The first time I get an MGL, is usually in the ancient era, and I normally save him to use for an army of medieval infantry or knights. The second, I would say I usually keep for a cav army but forgoing that army to move the palace could be a more viable option for sure.

To actually build the palace though, there's no way it could ever be worth it. Like one of you is saying, if you have a spot that is close enough to your palace to build one in a reasonable amount of time, then if you had spent that time building something else, you would have been much better off. How many swordsmen can a person get for a palace?! 100? 200? I don't actually know but it's something ridiculous. There's no way moving your palace is going to be better than having 100+ swordsmen.

So it is almost never worth it to build. Unless perhaps, like what was said, your capital is somehow captured and you want to return it to its original location, whether for a symbolic reason or because of production value. Even then, a MGL isn't that hard to come by, I guess it is just never worth it.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Prebuilds for wonders are not (to me) an exploit. Shields invested in a building can be used for another building. One could use a different wonder (that's available now) as a prebuild for a wonder that you will unlock the tech in 8 or 10 turns. Switching shields among wonders is something that the AI does frequently. It often results in a "wonder cascade" at the early portion of the Middle Ages. When someone finishes Sun Tzu, everyone who was building that switches to something else -- like Leonardo, or Sistine Chapel -- and when that is finished, they switch to something else. I've seen 3 wonders be completed in the same turn, because the AI swap their builds around.

Yes, the palace is a REALLY BIG bucket for shields, and can be switched into a wonder as long as you don't chop some shields into the bucket along the way. You're free to not use that mechanic if you prefer... you're free to start a prebuild with a building a few turns ahead, if that feels more fair to you.

Another game mechanic to remember is that you may only have one MGL at a time. If you save your first one, e.g., earned from a swordsman victory or archer victory, you won't get another one until you use it. Use it to rush something, use it to make an army, use it to open the door for the next one. I guess that I don't make war often enough; I get relatively few MGLs in the early game, so I always build an army. Having a victorious army unlocks the Heroic Epic small wonder, that increases my chances of getting another MGL. I tend to get more MGLs in the Middle Ages with victorious Knights, Crusaders, or Cavalry.

 

[justanick]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/cost-of-the-palace-for-c3c.107789/

The palace costs up to 1000 shields and at least 300. So that is between 10 swordsmen and up to 25 MedInfs. That is still somewhat affordable, as total production of a medieval empire is roughly around 200 shields per turn or 5 MedInf per turn.

Still neither actually building the palace nor the "free" palace jump by destroying the old capital seem to be worth it almost ever.

 

[Tasonne]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/cost-of-the-palace-for-c3c.107789/

The palace costs up to 1000 shields and at least 300. So that is between 10 swordsmen and up to 25 MedInfs. That is still somewhat affordable, as total production of a medieval empire is roughly around 200 shields per turn or 5 MedInf per turn.

Still neither actually building the palace nor the "free" palace jump by destroying the old capital seem to be worth it almost ever.

The free palace thing that was explained I forgot to say was probably another thing I wouldn't do. another one of my house rule challenges I like to use.

Anyway if a palace is 1000 and a swordsman is 30, then that's a lot more than 10 swordsmen. I guess it's not as many as I originally thought, I just remember building a palace a couple games ago taking just FOREVER. Are you sure it's 1000? Seems like more, you could be right.

Either way though, I don't think it's worth it to build now. I think we've all kind of established that, which is what I was hoping for.. Unless you're using a trick or MGL. I didn't know the thing about not being able to get a second MGL with another one active. I could have sworn I'd had two. Then again, maybe I'm wrong on that one. I usually use the MGL once I've got 3 elites of some kind. I will rarely use archers for it though.

Of course when you're talking wonders, if a player decides to build one, it's good to have a second or third option available in case someone builds first. I believe we all know about the cascade, competition can be fierce.. It is a risky business building wonders.

 

[Jivilov]

In general, it's only rarely a useful tactic:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/conquest-01-saves-are-now-available.89805/page-4#post-1887523

But there are a couple of good stories here on CFC, where a Palace-jump was used effectively:

"Recovering from Last Place..." (Huge Regent PTW game; rationale for the jump does not apply in C3C)
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ace-after-expansion-phase-step-by-step.77319/

"Gandhi on the Rocks" (Large Monarch C3C game; infertile island start)
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/gandhi-on-the-rocks.611443/

Playing a current game in which the Capital was on the edge of Desert while good Grassland was down south. Since it seemed winning chances were bleak decided to try a jump to see how it went. Sad to see Paris go but Besancon is doing just fine while the old Cap location (Strasbourg) has achieved pop 12 with all significant improvements. Other formerly marginal Towns are now mostly uncorrupted Cities geared up for Research and Joan is leading in Techs.

China's still ahead in score though and despite Mao's being kicked off the Continent his mainland Cities and Metros are formidable. Tried an invasion near tail-end of our first war with just Cannon and single Cav units---no MGL no Army---which failed miserably against Metro Shanghai. Fortunately managed to save most of the invasion force by making a hasty peace. Sitting tight until Tanks show up; don't think Arty with Cavs would work out either. Mao's attacked me this time so maybe it's possible to pop an MGL with elite Cavs against landed Rifles We'll see. Have Portugal and India helping on Mao's border but with little apparent effect. A most interesting game in any event.

Three thumbnails are attached. Sorry for the first one's double image.

 

[justanick]

I would not have done that jump. That part of the change in corruption, that can be attributed to the change in palace location, is actually marginal. Linking cities to the trade net, the government change, courthouses and the VP are more important.

Also Paris was an excellent city to pump out workers and settlers. Your better bet would have been to expand to 30 to 40 towns(until no more free land is left) first and take care of corruption second. In 50 AD there is much unsettled land and your towns are large while the amount of them and the amount of workers is small. There is no point in having population points that cannot use improve tiles if the alternative is to build workers who can improve the many unimproved tiles. The first thing those towns in the south should have built are workers.

Think of it like this: What is necessary to have every town connected to the capital with a road and for every town to have about 3 fully improved tiles. Having significantly more than 3 improved tiles for a town only makes sense after there is no more land to be settled and the amount of workers has reached approximately 2 per settlement. Then the towns can grow instead of turning their food into settlers and workers.

 

[Jivilov]

You may be right. However there couldn't be productive towns in desert to the north while there was quite significant reduction in corruption further south where Grassland and lakes are. There were already numerous foreign settlements since Coastal tiles gave practically universal access to Joan's continent along with other proximate landmasses. Can always gobble them up later after the Chinese are dealt with after Motorized Transport. Now seven turns from completing Scientific Method with a pre-Build on T of E as Workers construct a Rail network while focusing on Cities around new Capital.

Edit: Finished Theory of Evolution and now well ahead in Techs. Made peace with Mao, who's been obliged to adopt Fascism as Portugal and India keep up the pressure. The latter two are hard pressed though and have lost a border Town each. Hope they don't go under. Meanwhile gobbling up more territory while exacting retribution on Elizabeth who was dumb enough to attack. An additional source of Coal is in Joan's sights as Artillery and Infantry join the burgeoning French forces.

 

[jarred!]

At that point in the game, when it's 50 AD and you're just entering the middle ages, your priorities should be on connecting towns to your trade network(!!), and expanding into the unclaimed territory. The number of shields you'll gain from the palace jump is probably lower than if you kept Paris and connected and upgraded a few tiles in your unconnected towns. Long-term, a more- northerly capital might be preferred if you plan on expanding north too.

 

[Jivilov]

At that point in the game, when it's 50 AD and you're just entering the middle ages, your priorities should be on connecting towns to your trade network(!!), and expanding into the unclaimed territory. The number of shields you'll gain from the palace jump is probably lower than if you kept Paris and connected and upgraded a few tiles in your unconnected towns. Long-term, a more- northerly capital might be preferred if you plan on expanding north too.

My trade net was already connected---there's only one Lux type on the Continent as Joan spawned alone---with a couple Harbors already constructed. What sense does it make to spend shields plus Pop on Settlers to expand into Desert? Towns there can hardly grow until they're irrigated and railed. Joan needed less corruption plus more productive Grassland with Lakes. Meanwhile she's been gobbling up marginal foreign Towns and territory as Elizabeth and Gandhi stupidly declared war while Henry mysteriously cut her off from his Lux (now restored). Only Lincoln remains on the Continent with three Towns IIRC, remaining only on Joan's sufferance as she enjoys their Lux trade. Sounds like a win-win-win to yours truly. Cheers!

Here's a save for clarification:

 

[justanick]

My trade net was already connected

I sense you are missing the point i tried to make and should therefore make a bit clearer.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/everything-about-corruption-c3c-edition.76619/

Not being connected to the capital increases corruption significantly. If on standard map if 100x100 we compare republic and connected vs. despotism and not connected, then for a town at 10 tiles distance from the capital the distance corruption will be 20% as the connected republic and 37.5% as unconnected despotism. While that is more from despotism than from being unconnected it should be clear that every town being connected to the capital is a top priority for worker usage.

What sense does it make to spend shields plus Pop on Settlers to expand into Desert?

Well, mostly it makes sense to do so into proper territory of course. But even the somewhat useless towns in the desert itself will have a significant impact on your research pace as an early republic. Usually it does not make sense to not expand.

Exceptions are immediate military threats that force you to build military instead of settlers that would reduce production available for the military. In your case the abundant amount of military units suggest the opposite.

A town in the desert generates:

-2 gtp worth of free unit support
-1 gtp from wealth
-3 beakers per turn from a scientist
-1 or more regular commerce

So that is at least 7 beakers for every town in desert or tundra. 6 of them may increase your research output per turn from 78 to 120.

 

[Jivilov]

OK but compared to relatively uncorrupted Cities with all or most Citizens working tiles you get 6 gpt of unit support, usually double-digit gpt with Markets, ditto bpt with Libraries then Unis, and incomparably better production of Shields. What's not to like?

Appreciate the reminder of Town importance. Prompted me to go through Joan's settlements once again, discovering opportunities to create ten or twelve scientists, equivalent to a decent City with Lib and Uni. Also didn't need to run Lux slider at 30%, just 20. It sure pays to micro.Thanks!

 

[justanick]

OK but compared to relatively uncorrupted Cities with all or most Citizens working tiles you get 6 gpt of unit support, usually double-digit gpt with Markets, ditto bpt with Libraries then Unis, and incomparably better production of Shields. What's not to like?

Well, it takes a while to get there. To get there you need workers and you need to have researched construction for aqueducts. This is where the unproductive towns come in handy. The relative usefulness is greatest when your early republic is still fragile. Later when it has become an economic powerhouse the relative usefulness does diminish.

Another thing to consider is that any territory you take peacefully you donnot need to take by force.

 

[Jivilov]

Well, it takes a while to get there. To get there you need workers and you need to have researched construction for aqueducts. This is where the unproductive towns come in handy. The relative usefulness is greatest when your early republic is still fragile. Later when it has become an economic powerhouse the relative usefulness does diminish.

Another thing to consider is that any territory you take peacefully you donnot need to take by force.

Well, long as opponents don't scarf up available Resources it seems preferable to let THEM settle doggie-barf territory; it can always be snapped up later as Joan did in this one. It's true Besancon needed a Duct but still think it was well worth it. There were some Forest tiles which could help speed the build. Whether or not this come-from-behind win depended on a Palace jump is uncertain, but as they say the proof is in the pudding:

 

[justanick]

Well, long as opponents don't scarf up available Resources it seems preferable to let THEM settle doggie-barf territory; it can always be snapped up later as Joan did in this one. It's true Besancon needed a Duct but still think it was well worth it. There were some Forest tiles which could help speed the build. Whether or not this come-from-behind win depended on a Palace jump is uncertain, but as they say the proof is in the pudding:

Well, i majorly disagree with both your points. That the palace jump was detrimental to your success is obvious. Without it your strenght 50 turns after the avoidable loss of Paris would be significantly higher. Simply building the VP in Besancon or Rheims(no need for an aqueduct there) would have sufficed for corruption management.

The question of settling territory with low pre industrial potential is a bit more subtle. If like me you prefer to build up your economy first and wage war significantly later, then it seems clear that settling the territory early is the right choice.

If however you intend to wage war early, then it does of course have merit to let AI exhaust itself by building more settlers. This is not meant to say that this strategic choice is the right choice, but it is not quite as obvious.

Building a settler costs 30 shields and 2 population points which in a town without granary or a city with granary cost 20 food each. So one can think of it that the costs of a settler are 70 in total. Founding a town gives you a yield of at least 7 beakers per turn. So that is a return on investment of 10% per turn. That is significantly more than most investments possible in Civ 3. So why prefer to use your limited resource elsewhere?

Also settling territory means that not only you get yields, but you reduce the yields of AI. So from your point of view that is a win-win, while for AI it is the opposite, of course.

In fact it can lure AI to declare war on you. Whether that is on your best interest depends on the situation. But as rule of thumb it is preferable to have AI declare war on you rather than you declaring war on AI. It is better for AI Attitude and it is better for war weariness and war happiness. Still it is circumstantial, so no clear point here.

 

[Jivilov]

Well, i majorly disagree with both your points. That the palace jump was detrimental to your success is obvious. Without it your strenght 50 turns after the avoidable loss of Paris would be significantly higher. Simply building the VP in Besancon or Rheims(no need for an aqueduct there) would have sufficed for corruption management.

The question of settling territory with low pre industrial potential is a bit more subtle. If like me you prefer to build up your economy first and wage war significantly later, then it seems clear that settling the territory early is the right choice.

If however you intend to wage war early, then it does of course have merit to let AI exhaust itself by building more settlers. This is not meant to say that this strategic choice is the right choice, but it is not quite as obvious.

Building a settler costs 30 shields and 2 population points which in a town without granary or a city with granary cost 20 food each. So one can think of it that the costs of a settler are 70 in total. Founding a town gives you a yield of at least 7 beakers per turn. So that is a return on investment of 10% per turn. That is significantly more than most investments possible in Civ 3. So why prefer to use your limited resource elsewhere?

Also settling territory means that not only you get yields, but you reduce the yields of AI. So from your point of view that is a win-win, while for AI it is the opposite, of course.

In fact it can lure AI to declare war on you. Whether that is on your best interest depends on the situation. But as rule of thumb it is preferable to have AI declare war on you rather than you declaring war on AI. It is better for AI Attitude and it is better for war weariness and war happiness. Still it is circumstantial, so no clear point here.

Thanks for your detailed reply. Will respectfully disagree that the jump was detrimental but it's impossible to "prove" it since there's no save to play it out w/o the jump. Bottom line is Besancon's raw shield production is 29 while Strasbourg's (old Capital site) is only 16. Like you I prefer building the economy first before attacking, and of course having the AI declare first is great for War Happiness. But being mathematically challenged here are a couple questions:

1) Is there any difference in cost between building a Settler in a Town sans Granary and one in a City with Granary? AFAIK it's 30 Shields and 20 Food either way; why would having or not having a Granary make any difference? And how do you figure a Settler costs a total of 70?
2) Does founding a Town give 7 Beakers immediately? Hadn't noticed that. Certainly in totally corrupt Towns there's only 1 BPT w/o Scientists.