Capital -- Should it ever be moved?

[Gueron]

I have never built a palace to move my seat of government, at least not in Civ IV.

Is there a time when it would be appropriate? If so, when?

[Urban Ranger]

1. When barbarians sack your capital

2. When doing so lowers maintanence costs

[Blake]

About once in a hundred games .

[uberfish]

I have moved my palace because there was another city that had a much better commerce potential and I wanted to run bureaucracy there. Only 2 or 3 times though since capitals are usually fairly decent sites and have had the benefit of a longer time to grow, but they were worth it.

There are a few rare cases it's worth moving just for the distance maintenance, but generally Forbidden Palace becomes available at the right time to sort the first big expansion push out.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by uberfish
I have moved my palace because there was another city that had a much better commerce potential and I wanted to run bureaucracy there. Only 2 or 3 times though since capitals are usually fairly decent sites and have had the benefit of a longer time to grow, but they were worth it.

This seems the best reason for moving a capital. The benefit from buraucracy is huge, so the case for moving must be very strong sometimes. I've never actually done it though.

RJM at Sleeper's

[axisworks]

Thus far, I've only moved my capital once, and it was because one of my neighbors decided to place two cities right next to it. I wasn't able to start buffer cities in time because my first two settlers were killed. All the more reason to research archery early...

[platypotamus]

Your misspelling choice had me laughing


On the subject at hand though, my brain sort of shuts off the concept of moving the capital. I know it's a choice, I know the palace is in the build menu, but I never actually acknowlege its presence.

Perhaps I should, that bureaucracy concept sounded good. I wonder if I'm underusing bureaucracy...

[johnmcd]

It's deffo not mispelled.

In principle, I'd move it for maintainence, but I never have. It's one of those inefficiencies I live with that probably means I'm not really an Immortal level player.

[unamablebuiler]

i would move it if i had built versailles in my capital

[JimG]

I've done it on Civ II a few times - playing the English on a world map where I've grabbed America.
Not yet done it in Civ IV but was once tempted when my empire was almost entirely to one side of my start point.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by unamablebuiler
i would move it if i had built versailles in my capital

Versailles is not a build option in your capital.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by johnmcd
It's deffo not mispelled.

You are being ironic aren't you?

[Cadarn]

Yes, I've done it a couple of times.

I don't have the patience to wait to build all those courthouses to open up Forbidden Palace........other priorities all the time!

Both "new" capitals have been good commerce sites and established cities in their own right and the payoff in reduced maintenance (and therefore increased income and research) was immediately worth the production investment.

[Fallenhero]

I moved it once. The continent I was on was a rough figure eight so I centered my cap in the top "circle" and my FP in the bottom. Since I was going for domination I put Versailles on another Island. It was one of those easy games where the huts pop techs your neighbors get drawn into wars just when you want to expand.

[tetley]

Palace is only 160 hammers, later in the game it's cheap to move it. And if your capital is building most of the wonders, it makes a good candidate for a GP city sometimes. GP cities are all about food, and Bureaucracy doesn't benefit your food output. It's better to switch your capital over to a high-hammer/high-gold city.