Optimal Forbidden City Placement

[ripcord_tx]

How far away is optimal for building the Forbidden City? The AI often wants me to build it next to my capital which seams silly. Should it be 3 cities away? 4? On another continent?

 

[Grey Knight]

Really it's just proposing to build it in the next city that finishes something. By coincidence it happens to be a city near your capitol (which makes sense, since those cities will have better production, and finish things faster).

Ignore it. I recommend building the Forbidden Palace ASAP, since you'll get reduced corruption from it as soon as it is built. Build in where you wish your capitol was in your initial core area, and later in the game re-build the capitol closer to your enemies (to improve your cultural attacks).

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Hades]

I would even turn that building suggestion off. Actually building the forbidden palace near the capitol is not a bad idea. I would build it at the center of the initial empire to get the immediate benefits (starting location is often close to the edge of the sea which is not a good location for a palace) then move the palace later in the game after after my third or fourth expension. Also, if you build it near you palace, you won't need a great leader to rush it when they are hard to find early in the game.

 

[Konquest02]

I sometimes send a settler far away in the continent I control and make this city start working on my FP as soon as it is founded. You get a relatively early FP and a decent corruption management throughout the game.

--Kon--

 

[Quillan]

I don't think a particular strategy for the FP can be applied to every game. Personally, I feel it is important to get an idea about where your empire is now, and where you want it to go to. I generally will wait on building my FP till i've outlined a specific area that i want as a 2nd home base... In my current game (its the huge UK map) i didn't build the FP till after steampower... and now almost all of my cities are productive.

other thoughts:

1. building the FP next to your palace isn't really that good of an idea unless you are pretty sure you'll be able to rush your palace with a GL elsewhere... if you have to build a palace elsewhere it gets incrementally more expensive as the game goes on.

2. The best way to actually build a FP is to get the city to size 6, max out production, and keep it in WLKD --- this should allow for about a 30-40 turn build.

 

[Zachriel]

Placing the Forbidden Palace in the capital of your defeated enemy is often a great location. Building the Forbidden Palace with the Great Leader generated during the war of conquest is ideal.

 

[Grey Knight]

Zachriel, I disagree vehematly. Having your palace closer to the enemy is a great tool in the cultural war. When using a Great Leader, the cost differential is immaterial. The other advantage is having a quick FP, allowing you to take advantage of having reduced corruption earlier.

The real cost is culture boost the capital gets for being an ancient structure, however IIRC it's only 1 cpt.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Grey Knight
Zachriel, I disagree vehematly. Having your palace closer to the enemy is a great tool in the cultural war. When using a Great Leader, the cost differential is immaterial. The other advantage is having a quick FP, allowing you to take advantage of having reduced corruption earlier.

The real cost is culture boost the capital gets for being an ancient structure, however IIRC it's only 1 cpt.

Cheers,
Shawn

Though moving the capital is sometimes a good idea, it is certainly not the only strategy. There are several reasons to consider other strategies on occasion.

- A cultural improvement doubles in value after 1000 years, so as you mentioned that is "only" one additional culture point. However, that represents several hundred culture points by late in the game, and could be crucial at any point in the game.

- Moving the Palace requires either a Great Leader or a lot of shields and time, plus the loss of culture, so the cost is quite high.

- You can build your Forbidden Palace and still move the Palace later if you choose.

- Not everyone wants to ruthlessly dominate the world, so after having been forced into a war and conquering a nearby capital that may very well be the end of their warmongering.

- Using the same strategy over and over can be boring.

- There are often sentimental reasons not to move the Palace. Paris not the capital of France? Moscow not the capital of Russia? Though this reasoning may not be sound strategically, once moving the Palace has been ruled out, then strategy must be molded to fit the existing circumstance.

The strategy I posted is just one of many, but certainly would be considered the classic or traditional strategy. It needed to be mentioned.

Here is an example of a Palace "jump" from GOTM5:
http://www.zachriel.com/gotm5/

 

[Megalou]

What level are you guys playing on? To build FP in a conquered city is extremely risky, even if you want to end the hostilities thereby. You probably have to sacrifice a leader and then the city is in great danger cultural takeover. The risk is not much allieviated because you have the palace and a few cultural points. Only when a civ is going down because of massive aggression (usually from more than one civ) is it reasonably safe. And planning where to put the FP is a luxury. Anywhere not close to the capital or in a wasteland is a success.

Megalou the Smug

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Megalou
What level are you guys playing on? To build FP in a conquered city is extremely risky, even if you want to end the hostilities thereby.

Don't build the Forbidden Palace as the first cultural improvement. Generally, it's best to conquer all the surrounding towns first so as to eliminate any cultural overlap and to maximize the usefulness of the Forbidden Palace. And be sure to have a sufficient* garrison. With such a garrison, there is zero chance of a flip.

I usually play Emperor or Deity. The Classic strategy is actually better on higher levels where the chance of continued expansion is less, and the cost of building the Forbidden Palace plus then the Palace move is often not practical.


* Double the foreign influence. Foreign influence is defined as the number of foreign nationals in the city plus the number of tile overlaps. Double again for resistance or disruption, but you wouldn't normally build the Forbidden Palace until the city is under your political control. You should have plenty of troops for garrison once the war has been concluded.

 

[Megalou]

I'm sure you are a skilled player, Zachriel. It's just that some of the advise given on these pages are so general and disregard the complexity of an emperor or deity game. I think it's better to get my butt kicked on deity/continents than to gloat over myself on regent. Certainly a bigger learning experience.

The same goes for restarting a game as soon as there is not a heap of luxuries (or cattle, wheat etc.) on the starting tiles. How many people have actually won on deity/continents/60% water/restless barbarians/truly random starting location?

 

[DaveMcW]

There is a crucial difference between the Palace and FP. The Palace prevents any culture flip in its city, while decreasing the chance for culture flips in all surrounding cities (and increasing the chance for nearby enemies to flip). The FP only contributes to culture like any other wonder and does not affect culture flips directly.

If you place the Forbidden Palace in an enemy capital, especially one with a large population, you are taking a huge risk. I've seen the FP city flip before and it's not fun.

On the other hand, moving your capital can be a powerful weapon in a culture war, worth much more than the age bonus of the old Palace.

-DaveMcW

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
If you place the Forbidden Palace in an enemy capital, especially one with a large population, you are taking a huge risk. I've seen the FP city flip before and it's not fun.

On the other hand, moving your capital can be a powerful weapon in a culture war, worth much more than the age bonus of the old Palace.

If you are going to use the Palace as a forward base, then the answer to the question is -- build the Forbidden Palace close to the original capital.

On the other hand, you will never lose your Forbidden Palace built in a newly captured city, if you garrison sufficiently*. If you are not sure, then do not build the Forbidden Palace until that Civilization is completely destroyed and there are no overlapping tiles with any other Civ.

I rarely have problems with culture-flipping so I don't usually use the Palace move unless I need to centralize the capital. A strong core is appropriate for culture wins or most any game with a reasonable map-size. For huge maps, with low-culture or other non-classic builds such as town packing, then moving the Palace is an easy way of reducing culture-flips. The historical justification for constantly moving the Palace is rather weak.

As usual, there is no "right" answer, as it will depend greatly on the position and your style of gameplay.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel

On the other hand, you will never lose your Forbidden Palace built in a newly captured city, if you garrison sufficiently*. If you are not sure, then do not build the Forbidden Palace until that Civilization is completely destroyed and there are no overlapping tiles with any other Civ.

In the Classic Strategy, the war is normally resolved first. The site of the Forbidden Palace usually is in the center of the new territories, is no longer in disruption, and has at least the Temple already built, and usually other culture improvements, too. The attacking military units are now freed for garrison duty. For instance, a typical Ancient Age conquest may have a foreign population of six or eight. In this case, you will need twelve or sixteen units to garrison the city and you will have zero chance of a culture flip. Over time, the foreigners will convert to your culture, reducing the necessity of a strong garrison.

Of course, if you destroy the other Civ, then you probably won't need a garrison.

(In Chess, there is a Classic style of play, involving tactical combinations and a forthright development. The 20th century saw the development of a Hyper-Modern style, which involves a complex, interlocked position with little chance for a either player to gain a tactical advantage, but featuring a slow and inexorable strangulation of the opponent. Which is better? Hyper-Modern was dominating the field, but then Bobby Fisher brought the fiery Classic style back into prominence. Play is more balanced now, and players must know both general strategies in order to compete.)

 

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by Zachriel

Don't build the Forbidden Palace as the first cultural improvement. Generally, it's best to conquer all the surrounding towns first so as to eliminate any cultural overlap and to maximize the usefulness of the Forbidden Palace. And be sure to have a sufficient* garrison. With such a garrison, there is zero chance of a flip.

I usually play Emperor or Deity. The Classic strategy is actually better on higher levels where the chance of continued expansion is less, and the cost of building the Forbidden Palace plus then the Palace move is often not practical.

* Double the foreign influence. Foreign influence is defined as the number of foreign nationals in the city plus the number of tile overlaps. Double again for resistance or disruption, but you wouldn't normally build the Forbidden Palace until the city is under your political control. You should have plenty of troops for garrison once the war has been concluded.

Originally posted by Zachriel

...For instance, a typical Ancient Age conquest may have a foreign population of six or eight. In this case, you will need twelve or sixteen units to garrison the city and you will have zero chance of a culture flip. Over time, the foreigners will convert to your culture, reducing the necessity of a strong garrison.

Of course, if you destroy the other Civ, then you probably won't need a garrison.

If you play on Emperor or Diety, the other civs have a significant culture lead on you and a 2x garrison is not be nearly enough by the time you capture an enemy capital. Sometimes even your entire army is not enough to zero out the culture flip formula. This is where the advantage of a Palace over the FP comes into play.

The FP would be viable if you raze the enemy captial and rebuild with your own settler, or if you wipe them out, or if you starve the city down to one pop so that your garrison can handle the one remaining foreigner. But in the newly-captured city scenario you started with, a Palace is clearly better to turn productive enemy cities into productive cities of your own as fast as possible.

-DaveMcW

 

[Chieftess]

I try to build it where I'll get the most production and growth out of it. grasslands+mountains are GREAT once you get rails. One of my best games came from a lucky early Great Leader, which I used in the enemy capital (hills were scare in this map), and it was the only cluster on my continent! (except for mountains to the east, but the civ there was choked by jungle).

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DaveMcW

If you play on Emperor or Diety, the other civs have a significant culture lead on you and a 2x garrison is not be nearly enough by the time you capture an enemy capital. Sometimes even your entire army is not enough to zero out the culture flip formula. This is where the advantage of a Palace over the FP comes into play.

According to Firaxis 2x the foreign influence (defined as the number of foreigners plus the number of overlaps) is always sufficient -- regardless of distance from capitals, local or national culture. Double that for resistance or disruption.

However, a Palace move can certainly be an effective strategy in some situations.

 

[Zachriel]

A standard expansion has cities with 3-4 tiles in between, with some variation for terrain. A Palace will have its primary effect on the first ring of cities and a secondary effect on the second ring and depends somewhat on map size. For best results, you want to avoid overlapping the core rings, so have the Palaces with 3-4 cities in between, something like this:

XXPXXXFXX
or
XXPXXXXFXX
or ambitiously
XXPXX . . XXFXX


It can be hard to complete the Palace far away unless you have a Great Leader. It is very important to construct the Forbidden Palace as soon as possible, so the "best" may not be practical. Don't worry about a perfect placement. Get it built.

If you choose to use the Palace move there are a couple of options. The first is to build the Forbidden Palace in the "best" possible location near the center of the original core. Then disband the capital or rebuild the Palace in the conquered territory.

XXPFXX
becomes
xXXFXX . . . XXPXX

Another option is to build the Forbidden Palace with 1-2 cities in between. This allows the original core to retain some productivity when the Palace is moved, but allow you to take advantage of the increased production for a period of time before moving the Palace.

XXPXFXX
later becomes
xxXXFXX . . XXPXX

or

XXPXXFXX
later becomes
xxxXXFXX . . . XXPXX

And as always, it depends on the exact position and your style of play.

 

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by Zachriel


According to Firaxis 2x the foreign influence (defined as the number of foreigners plus the number of overlaps) is always sufficient -- regardless of distance from capitals, local or national culture. Double that for resistance or disruption.

Check out the culture flip thread. You need one unit per foreign citizen or tile, doubled if they owned the city first, and then multiplied by the ratio of your cultures.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DaveMcW


Check out the culture flip thread. You need one unit per foreign citizen or tile, doubled if they owned the city first, and then multiplied by the ratio of your cultures.

Sorry, I haven't been able to find an authoritative source for the 2x rule, but the post you mentioned does make clear that there does exist the concept of a sufficient garrison.

But can anyone post a real-game example of a culture flip contrary to the 2x rule, that is, a flip that occurred when the garrison was at least twice the foreign influence (and the city not in resistance or disruption)?

Perhaps it is an artifact of my playing style, but I have never had a city flip under the 2x rule, even on Deity level, even cities deep in enemy territory, even against civilizations rich in culture, even when it would have been a complete disaster. This is a typical example from German Valor GOTM8.

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm8/ad1852-France.htm