Palace, Forbidden City optimal placements

[Thierry]

Hi !

I saw in other post that the Corruption takes distance to nearest Palace or Forbiden City into account.

If so, what is the best relative place for those two places ? I guess it depends on the shape of your empire, but ideally, what ? An ellipsoid to lower max distance ?

Has anyone deviced a little simulation program to test the best placement ?

Is it worth to rebuild your palace somewhere else ? I usually don't dare (fear of culture lost)

 

[Veteranewbie]

Under non-communism government the farther a city from the palace (or forbidden palace) the more coruption it will experieces.
Normally i play on a standard map and i like to make my empire looks like an oval. I will make an end with my capital, surround it with 4 - 5 cities on one side, then make a "connecting city" on another side, and on the farther side of that "connecting city" i make another city which i expects to build a "forbbiden" city. And surround my forbbiden city with another 4 - 5 cities.. Also on both empty side of my connecting city i build 2 cities. This will make me about 14 productive cities.
Here is how it gonna looks like:
C= city
P = Capital
F = City with Forbbiden palace

C C C C C

C P C F C

C C C C C

 

[Scyphax]

In the ideal world best is 2 completely separate circles - I very rarely achieve this. This maximises the number of productive cities.


C= Productive city
P = Capital
F = City with Forbbiden palace

C C C C C C

C P C C F C

C C C C C C

 

[Scyphax]

I ment this but the blanks dissapeared

C C C--------- C C C

C P C--------- C F C

C C C---------C C C

 

[Shabbaman]

Originally posted by Thierry
Is it worth to rebuild your palace somewhere else ? I usually don't dare (fear of culture lost)

There's no culture loss, but since buildings over 1000 years old produce double the culture, your culture will grow less rapidly.
Moving your palace is possible if you build your FP close to your old capital. If you've got a leader, you could rush the palace on the other end of your empire. This is a viable strategy,
Of course, you could do the same thing with the FP, but you cannot move the FP (duh!). And you should build the FP ASAP, since it reduces corruption immediately. And since you can build the FP a lot faster in a city next to your capital then in a remote city...

 

[muppet]

Building the FP next to the capitol strat has been around for a very long time. I've thought about it on and off for months now trying to figure it out - I try to take the time to understand before asking more stupid questions.

But I still don't get it! Help! Why?

If the P and FP do not give overlapping effects, why not just wait to use a GL to build it where you actually want it? Is it because...

1. You can build it, so you do for the extra culture?
2. You expect to get a GL from a later war and you don't have a use for you current GL?
3. The shields your nearby city expends (or the GL you use) on the nearby FP is made up for by the reduced corruption of nearby cities to that side of your empire?

It is probably something really obvious, but I can't figure it out. Any help understanding this would be appreciated.

 

[Shabbaman]

Originally posted by muppet
But I still don't get it! Help! Why?

If the P and FP do not give overlapping effects, why not just wait to use a GL to build it where you actually want it?

Well, if you've got a GL, you can rebuild your palace anyway! If you build the FP, it might not have an overlapping effect, but it has an effect on cities closer to the FP than to the palace. Therefore, corruption will be lowered.
If you try to build (not rush) the FP (or palace) in a remote, thus less productive (through corruption), city, it takes forever. In a productive city it's build pretty fast. The point is, the FP is cheap, a palace is expensive. So, you can actually build the FP, but you must rush the palace.
Also, you can use it as a prebuild for wonders if your priorities change.

 

[Rabid Pop Tart]

i never build the FP in the early game. I wait until I've expanded a lot, or I wait until I've taken some cities. for example I'm playing as germany in the earth map. i'm sending a bunch of settlers down to australia now. when I fill up the continent, then i'll build the FP, and have some swell production down there as well.

~ Brendan

 

[col]

Its also the case that if it were possible to build your palace and Fp in the SAME city (i know it isnt but bear with me) then your corruption would be reduced.

This is because building your FP doubles the optimum city number ie the number of cities that you can have before corruption kicks in.

It follows that building your FP anywhere helps your corruption a lot. Thus building it next to your palace where you have the shields to build it quickly is a good thing.

I've come round to this rather slowly (Doh). You can then move your palace either by the palace jump or by a leader. I cant count the number of games that I've spent waiting for a leader to build my Fp when I could have had many of the benefits centuries earlier than used the leader not to build my FP but to place the palace where I want it.

On last thing. Build your FP in the centre of where you envisage your core empire then build your palace right on the boundary of the civ you are about to attack. You can flip lots of cites straight away and vastly reduce the chances of any conquered cities flipping back. Remember your capital can never flip. I've taken a city in the middle of enemy territory, built my palace there next turn then been able to use all its production very quickly to rush an airport, then flooded the battlefield with my units.

I had one fun game where my I was generating lots of leaders in a late war - as you often do - and walking my palace across the map towards the enemy capital. No flips because the conquered cities were always closer to my capital than the enemies and of course no danger that the lead city where my units were healing would flip.

 

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by col


I had one fun game where my I was generating lots of leaders in a late war - as you often do - and walking my palace across the map towards the enemy capital. No flips because the conquered cities were always closer to my capital than the enemies and of course no danger that the lead city where my units were healing would flip.

I also do that. Not because I am so worry about culture flips, but to speed up shield productions in those captured cities, and makes them productive. My old cities usually don't need it anymore, since they contain all kind of shield improvements (police stations/courthouse/factories).
But of course it depends of the situations and the timeline.

 

[planetfall]

Interesting, I was going to start a new thread and then noticed this is the subject I wanted to talk about.

My practice has been:

1. build palace
2. build FP in middle ages about 4 cities from palace
3. in later game move palace so the FP-P pair are about equal distance apart.

But, now wondering if this is the best approach. The problems are:
1. FP location often is not in the center of the most productive cities,
2. palace relocation has a big hit on productive core of empire.

Thinking that maybe putting FP about 2 cities away from palace might solve both of those problems. I would give up some production gain in the middle ages and gain some production in later game.

What do you think-- should FP be fairly close to palace?

== PF

 

[SanPellegrino]

I build FP always close to my capital (early), at the centre of my original homeland. Until I managed to conquer a huge chunk of land from the AI, I have the benefit of a very low corrupted empire. Than I flip the palace to a central loation in the conquered land. From what I read, that's what most people do.

 

[Dragon67]

Distance from the palace is not the most important fore me. I prefer to build it in a location where it affects as many cities as possible, even enemy cities, since they will be mine later in the game. To build it in a long distance from your palace may slow you from the beginning, but it may pays off later.