Time to move

[Dark Ascendant]

Does anyone ever relocate their palace to a new capitol? As an empire spreads in only one direction, is it strategically wise to relocate the capitol to a more central location or let it stay in the old place to avoid corruption in the larger and more developed first city and surrounding cities?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

I usually let it be so it keeps my older larger cities working well. I also usually get to Republic fairly quickly, so it reduces the corruption, then finally to Democracy, so there is no corruption at all.

 

[kovalie]

I sometimes move it to the centre of my empire, in a crowded area, to lower corruption, but only if I think it is worth the time and shields

 

[Zelig]

I don't usually switch my palace, but in long games where I am in Democracy sometimes I'll switch it to a slightly better spot so I can build a courthouse in my old capital.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Assuming that you're in Communism, Fundamentalism, or Democracy, how often do you move the capitol for strategic reasons. For example, if the capitol was the front lines when you're fighting someone stronger in a defensive war.

 

[funxus]

Isn't it just positive to have the palace at the front in these governments. The palace reduces corruption and also affects the price when subverting cities. There's no corruption in these govs and expensive front-cities is just good.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

If you are in a Democracy, they can't bribe your cities at all.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by funxus
Isn't it just positive to have the palace at the front in these governments. The palace reduces corruption and also affects the price when subverting cities. There's no corruption in these govs and expensive front-cities is just good.

Okay, in my scenario, the palace is directly threatened. There are no cities or fortresses in front to act as an effective buffer zone. Tanks and planes and cruise missiles go at it every turn. Assuming that I'm in Communism and the former capital is big, I don't want to risk losing a thousand in cash when I can just relocate and lose one or two trade arrows a turn.

 

[Marlos]

To answer the original question, I have only moved my capital once or twice in all of the games I've ever played. Under the advanced government types, there does not appear to be a genuine reason to move it.

However, I can understand Dark Ascendant's rationale for wanting to move it. Its been a long time since my capital came under attack! I do try to build cities outward from the capital, though, because of the corruption inefficiencies in early governments. When this isn't possible due to geographic constraints, I compensate by building additional defensive units in the capital and the immediately surrounding cities. I will even tailor my military strategy to go after the AI closest to my capital.

I seem to recall that in one of my early games of Civ2, I lost Washington to the Romans , and had serious trouble getting it back. Needless to say, I lost that game.

Generally, I have more constructive things to build than another palace, though.

 

[mgeary]

I keep it in my first city, go to communism and have 2 or 3 units in each city will stop disorder.

 

[gr8ful wes]

The only time I ever built a palace was by accident. I thought I clicked on granery or something else and a few turns later I have a new capital. Whoops.

 

[Ace]

yeah, the only time I have moved the palace was once when I accidently clicked on palace when I thought I had clicked on Freight. big surprise in a couple of turns. Never did that again!!

 

[Old n Slow]

I’ve moved the palace a few times -- in Monarchy. I’ll shift the palace to the SSC instead of building a courthouse there -- I figure for an extra 20 shields, the extra uncorrupted arrow or two will justify the transfer. I can’t remember ever doing it for another reason.

 

[covok48]

Well I lost my capital once...I kinda HAD to build one. ;-)

 

[TheViking]

I like fighting wars as a democracy but sometimes switch to communism for a few turns to mass produce veteran spies. In these cases I sometimes move the capital to the most important city in the war zone on foreign territory to prevent it from being bribed.

 

[Marlos]

Of course, Viking, your strategy completely removes the chance of bribery. However, stationing a veteran spy (produced by Communism) greatly reduces the chance of bribery as well, and doesn't require the construction of a new palace.

 

[TheViking]

Originally posted by Marlos
Of course, Viking, your strategy completely removes the chance of bribery. However, stationing a veteran spy (produced by Communism) greatly reduces the chance of bribery as well, and doesn't require the construction of a new palace.

Exactly. But the problem is if I don't have veteran spies before becoming a commie (I can get these by sabotaging enemy units though). A bigger problem is the enormous corruption during the switch to communism. It's just one turn but still a big risk if the enemy has lots of $$.

 

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Marlos
Of course, Viking, your strategy completely removes the chance of bribery. However, stationing a veteran spy (produced by Communism) greatly reduces the chance of bribery as well, and doesn't require the construction of a new palace.

I don't know about that. Diplos and spies reduces the chance of stealing a tech from a city, but I think that's all.