I want a Wartime Palace

[costanza]

Anyone ever wonder why you can't build a palace if you have your economy mobilized? It sure would help to be able to move that sucker around after you capture some cities, especially after producing a leader in battle.

The reduced corruption and waste would work great for my military production if I could put it where I want, but no, if I'm in a war-time economy, no palace building for me.

 

[punkbass2000]

That is the point of mobilization, you can only build units and war-related buildings

 

[ufftyuwe]

Originally posted by costanza
Anyone ever wonder why you can't build a palace if you have your economy mobilized? It sure would help to be able to move that sucker around after you capture some cities, especially after producing a leader in battle.

The reduced corruption and waste would work great for my military production if I could put it where I want, but no, if I'm in a war-time economy, no palace building for me.

Do this:

Start the Editor

change the rules
go to "buildings"
select the Palace

and make a "hook" for Militaristic and VOILA you can build it

 

[Traquenard-fx]

Originally posted by ufftyuwe



Do this:

Start the Editor

change the rules
go to "buildings"
select the Palace

and make a "hook" for Militaristic and VOILA you can build it

The End

I hope is a happy ending

 

[louiethelesbo]

Originally posted by costanza
Anyone ever wonder why you can't build a palace if you have your economy mobilized? It sure would help to be able to move that sucker around after you capture some cities, especially after producing a leader in battle.

The reduced corruption and waste would work great for my military production if I could put it where I want, but no, if I'm in a war-time economy, no palace building for me.

This guy is a flaming wanker....he doesn't even know who Heidi Klum is....Give up your latex girl friend...get a life.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by louiethelesbo


This guy is a flaming wanker....he doesn't even know who Heidi Klum is....Give up your latex girl friend...get a life.

And you are offensive.
Stop the trolling before I report you to a Mod, laddie.

PS
I don't know or for that matter care who Heidi Ho-bag Klum is.

Curb your aggression.

 

[bobgote]

umm louisethelesbo...WTH?

also, it's not exactly the topic, but I think you should be able to capture enemy palaces if you get their capital city (i dunno if they get another palace if you wipe out their capital [wouldn't work in this case], it didn't used to happen in CIV1, you just got heapsa corruption until you could build another palace).

It could act as another Forbidden Temple. But then they could build another one and you could take that....forget i ever said anything. sorry.

 

[costanza]

Interesting point, I never played Civ1.

When you capture an enemy capital, you don't get to keep it, and they do get another one automatically. If you could keep it like a FP, we would all manipulate that to death.

I do contend that we should be able to build a palace in wartime. Its been done many times thoughout history and not necessarily when a countries capital was occupied by the enemy.

 

[zeeter]

First, I have never seen the AI move its palace except when its capital is captured. This is already an advantage that we have over the AI. If we start to build these during times of war (when mobilized) it will further that advantage over the AI. Unless something is built into the AI's strategy, I don't recommend that anyone change their rules.

Second. I'm intrigued by the idea of capturing an enemy capital and keeping its palace. Obviously, if the enemy is going to get another palace automatically it won't work.

Here's an idea, though. Say I (The Romans) conquer Paris. I get the French Palace. Have the French Palace produce half the culture per turn (5?) of a regular palace. The French capital moves to Orleans where a new palace is. If the Romans later capture Orleans, the palace there will be disabled unless the culture it has produced over its lifetime is greater than that of the original palace.

Any thoughts?

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by louiethelesbo


This guy is a flaming wanker....he doesn't even know who Heidi Klum is....Give up your latex girl friend...get a life.

Moderator Action: You are the proud recipient of a 3 day ban!!! Congratulations!!! Now stop flaming and we might let you post around here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[costanza]

I was more interested in a newly captured palace for the production value. There is nothing worse than blowing a civ off another continent and having 20-30 worthless cities hanging around.

Increased culture would be nice, but if war goes like your scenario there, a new palace in Orleans would rarely, if ever, have more culture built up than the original. On the other hand, I guess it would happen if you tried to stomp someone early in the game, got their capital, but didn't finish them off, and came back later in another war.

 

[bobgote]

Hmmm, i don't think you should get culture from their palace, it should function like a captured wonder, where you get the benefits, but not the culture. It would be enough of an advantage anyway. maybe it could be coded so one civ can only have it's palace captured only once. Every subsequent time the palace is destroyed.

Has anyone here had the unfortunate situation of their capital being captured? do you get a palace in your next city or is it just a palace-less capital? A good strategy in Civ1 was to take the enemy capital so the rest of their country descends into civil disorder.

Also does anyone have any RW historical examples of this process occuring. Also sorry, I guess I took this off topic a little.

Yeh, wartime palaces should be allowed, but with a production decrease in building cos they're not a military building.

 

[ufftyuwe]

Originally posted by PaleHorse76
Moderator Action: You are the proud recipient of a 3 day ban!!! Congratulations!!! Now stop flaming and we might let you post around here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I dont get why you banned them...
He/She did not use any names nor any pronoms.
He/She spoke in the third party.

Please dont abuse your mod rights. Wanking is not a bad word, its a human habit and what He/She might have meant was, that people should not play too much computer, but rather get outside and get a happy life.

A mod can read between the lines...I am a mod in an austrian forum and I do it pretty well.

No word ever is to be censored otherwise it does not have to be named: FORUM!
Freedom of Speech should be wisely thought about.
And since anybody has the right to say whatever he/she feels or want to say, it is part of his/her freedom.

And since nobody can get hurt in a virtual discussion, it just shows a very repressive way of punishing somebody for writing his/her opinion to anybody.



I'm sorry I got off the subject, but I needed to write that

Happy Day
Uwe

 

[Black Waltz]

You forfieted your Freedom of Speech when you signed up to this forum. This - and every other forum on the net - is under the juristication of those that own it. They can - and will - take any action that they deem fit in regulating the boards. Using derogatory launguage against another on these boards is not acceptable as young and old lurk, and there are enough horrors in the world as it is.

 

[bobgote]

ufftyuwe:
while PaleHorse doesn't have to explain themselves to you, I think you ought to know that louisethelesbo has been saying similar (and more explicit) things in other threads and generally being distracting (for want of a better word). And btw apparently our Right to Free Speech doesn't count here (read the Forum Rules)

 

[damunzy]

ufftyuwe:
What they said plus: Please, if you have comments on how I am doing as a moderator bring them up in a PM to me or in the Site Feedback forum. I would be glad to explain why I did what I did (unless I am cranky ) but please do not question my actions in a thread such as this as it just gets everyone off-topic (7 out of 16 posts, almost half, not even about the topic now). Thanks all.

 

[ChrisWade]

What would be nice, is that if you captured an enemy palace, it wouldn't do anything for your existing pop. but it would keep you enemies happy. By this i mean when you take over an enemies city, there are less resistors and there is a reduced chance of that city flipping back to its original civ.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by ChrisWade
What would be nice, is that if you captured an enemy palace, it wouldn't do anything for your existing pop. but it would keep you enemies happy. By this i mean when you take over an enemies city, there are less resistors and there is a reduced chance of that city flipping back to its original civ.

I don't think that's realistic. Oh, he's taken my capital city, but we still have palace i am happy our conqueror is living in our palace but we are happy

 

[ChrisWade]

I don't mean that it keeps your enemies happy, I mean it keeps your enemies that live in your cities happy.

 

[bobgote]

see above