Cartouche Bee
Appropriations Consultant
If you can rebuild a palace when one exists, then you should be able to rebuild a Forbidden Palace when one exists.
Rebuild a Forbidden Palace
- Thread starter Cartouche Bee
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2000
- Messages
- 12,624
I really would like that. 
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
So would I. It's an idea that clearly makes sense.
I see only one drawback - and it's potentially serious. Rebuilding a palace/FP as a strategic move (not because the first one was lost in war) is one of those things that the AI probably wouldn't handle well. Currently the "Palace Switch" gambit is used pretty commonly by we humans. I don't believe I've ever seen the AI do this intentionally. Only times I've ever seen an AI civ switch it's palace it was due to losing the original in war.
Free switching of the FP could certainly be seen as "unbalancing" the game.
I still think it's a good idea. It would be nice if we were at the point where the developers, rather than labelling something that makes sense an "exploit" and leaving it out of the game would work on giving the AI the ability to use the "exploit".
I see only one drawback - and it's potentially serious. Rebuilding a palace/FP as a strategic move (not because the first one was lost in war) is one of those things that the AI probably wouldn't handle well. Currently the "Palace Switch" gambit is used pretty commonly by we humans. I don't believe I've ever seen the AI do this intentionally. Only times I've ever seen an AI civ switch it's palace it was due to losing the original in war.
Free switching of the FP could certainly be seen as "unbalancing" the game.
I still think it's a good idea. It would be nice if we were at the point where the developers, rather than labelling something that makes sense an "exploit" and leaving it out of the game would work on giving the AI the ability to use the "exploit".
I'm 100% behind this.
I'm only 40% behind this.
Again, solid idea that will benifit human players.
I'm dubious about this for AI though. While there has been some modifications made to the AI for it to place its FP more strategically, the AI is still in a bit of a slight disadvantage in FP placement and giving the human the ability to fine tune their FP placement any further will create a large imbalance.
Again, as far as most gameplay features are concerned, if the AI can't do it, then don't put it in. It just stacks the deck too much in our favour. Looks like this should be an MP only feature.
Again, solid idea that will benifit human players.
I'm dubious about this for AI though. While there has been some modifications made to the AI for it to place its FP more strategically, the AI is still in a bit of a slight disadvantage in FP placement and giving the human the ability to fine tune their FP placement any further will create a large imbalance.
Again, as far as most gameplay features are concerned, if the AI can't do it, then don't put it in. It just stacks the deck too much in our favour. Looks like this should be an MP only feature.
PurplePacifier
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2003
- Messages
- 39
As far as A.I., it isn't our problem as players. Good A.I. is what we should expect if not demand. Besides, one cop out that game developers can to compensate for the sorry A.I. is to make the game harder for us players somehow or allow the A.I. to cheat a little more.
I do think that we should be able to rebuild the Forbidden Palace somewhere else.
However, I think we should be able to build more Forbidden Palaces depending on how many cities are in the nation. This would greatly help reduce corruption in larger nations.
I'd like to bring this up as another topic, but with the option of having more Forbidden Palaces, I think we should bring back Civil Wars.
Civil Wars are pretty common in real life. If one occurs, then one of the few Forbidden Palaces would be the main Palace for the secceeding nation, while surrounding cities would be part of the rebellious nation. The greater the nation, the greater the possiblity of civil wars, or other criteria.
So yeah, it makes a lot more sense to rebuild a Forbidden Palace before moving the capitol of the nation.
I do think that we should be able to rebuild the Forbidden Palace somewhere else.
However, I think we should be able to build more Forbidden Palaces depending on how many cities are in the nation. This would greatly help reduce corruption in larger nations.
I'd like to bring this up as another topic, but with the option of having more Forbidden Palaces, I think we should bring back Civil Wars.
Civil Wars are pretty common in real life. If one occurs, then one of the few Forbidden Palaces would be the main Palace for the secceeding nation, while surrounding cities would be part of the rebellious nation. The greater the nation, the greater the possiblity of civil wars, or other criteria.
So yeah, it makes a lot more sense to rebuild a Forbidden Palace before moving the capitol of the nation.
Actually, there was a very well thought out and detailed proposal in the general forum (Civ4 or a similar thread). I don't remember the author, but the basic idea was to combine Forbidden Palaces with Civilization splits: you can build as many "Provincial Capitals" (essentially a Forbidden Palace) as you want, even one in every city if you like. The effect would be the same as FP, i.e. empire center for corruption calculations. Thus: Provincial Capital in every city => zero corruption.
However, there would be a catch: Each turn every Provincial Capital has a small chance that it declares independence and forms a completely new civ dragging with itself all the cities that are closer to that Provincial Capital than to some other capital (provincial or main).
This would very neatly fix the Empire Sprawl problem as it mainly affects the bigger civs who need to build capitals to manage their empires. It would create a negative feedback loop for growing too big, which IMO is also neat, effective, and very much historically accurate and would keep the game dynamic until the end.
Of course, this is something for Civ4, not Conquests...
However, there would be a catch: Each turn every Provincial Capital has a small chance that it declares independence and forms a completely new civ dragging with itself all the cities that are closer to that Provincial Capital than to some other capital (provincial or main).
This would very neatly fix the Empire Sprawl problem as it mainly affects the bigger civs who need to build capitals to manage their empires. It would create a negative feedback loop for growing too big, which IMO is also neat, effective, and very much historically accurate and would keep the game dynamic until the end.
Of course, this is something for Civ4, not Conquests...
Similar threads
