Capital -- Should it ever be moved?

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Son of David
Well Generaldoktor, I was thinking about this last night and I've come to the conclusion that 'capitol' wins it by a technicality.

Because the 'capitol' is actually the palace, and by building a palace elsewhere you are moving your capitol.

You are not moving the 'capital' because it's impossible to physically move a city. You are simply designating a new capital.

So you move the capitol but not the capital.

Yeah, you're right and I thought about that right after I sent the last post. In the generic representative American school classroom I spoke of, they generally didn't stress the general usage of the word "capitol," only that certain big building in Washington D.C. that they wanted us kiddies to always know how to spell. But obviously the latter usage derives orginally from the former, "capitol" and that is what we would be moving. Civ calls it "the palace," even when you're running representative civics, but that's only symbolic usage also.

However, here we are again discussing terminology and not addressing the thread's basic question, "When, if ever, should you move the thing?"

[uberfish]

I started on a cheesy peninsula with room for 2 ciites in a game on the weekend with my exit blocked by Tokugawa's capital, and had no choice but to axe rush him down.

After taking over Toku's lands and a barb city on the far side, I ended up with 7 cities. Since Kyoto had better science potential than my capital as well as being more central, I moved my capital there and saved 14 gold per turn before Code of Laws. The city produced close to 700 beakers in the late game under bureaucracy with no super specialists. That palace move made a large difference in the game, probably enough to be the difference between winning and losing.

Random fact: Industrious speeds up the construction of Palaces too.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by uberfish
I started on a cheesy peninsula with room for 2 ciites in a game on the weekend with my exit blocked by Tokugawa's capital, and had no choice but to axe rush him down.

After taking over Toku's lands and a barb city on the far side, I ended up with 7 cities. Since Kyoto had better science potential than my capital as well as being more central, I moved my capital there and saved 14 gold per turn before Code of Laws. The city produced close to 700 beakers in the late game under bureaucracy with no super specialists. That palace move made a large difference in the game, probably enough to be the difference between winning and losing.

Random fact: Industrious speeds up the construction of Palaces too.

Back on topic, great! Interesting you mentioned that, because on the thread "Worst startups" I mentioned a similar start with Saladin at the other end and abandoned that setup because I didn't think I could get axemen and overrun him in time to not be permanently handicapped even in the early game. Guess they got bigger stones in your army.

Nice remainder about industrious too, as I've enjoyed playing Napoleon lately. I didn't address the guy who spoke of turning the former capital into a food-emphasizng GP specialty city later; not a bad idea in some circumstances, (I tend not to overspecialize, see the Great Debate in later pages of Velociryx' second strategy thread; I tend to adopt his view.) If I'm playing Nappy I now know it won't take me forever to resite the "capitol."

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by The keeper
If all my expansion is uni-directional - I will think about moving my capital.

This happens fairly often, where a capital is at one extreme of the empire. Even adding the the FP at a good location may not quite do the trick. I've never moved my capital in Civ IV, but have thought about is a number of times.

[snafuc4]

FWIW in RL the capital city of a nation may not be the seat of government (although it usually is)

Hence the capitol may move around whilst the capital generally stays put.. hmm, does that ring any bells (Versai, FP anyone)?

[Gueron]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor



Therefore the reference to spelling in the second choice of the poll was an inside joke that may not be clear if you didn't study English in Anglo-American schools or have access to an Oxford English dictionary. To those in the know , the poll choice was actually funny.

I am a little disappointed we spent half the existing thread clarifying the crack about spelling.

I apologize, I offered the choice on spelling was, as you surmised, a joke. It was not truly meant to detract from the actual question.

The answers that I have received on topic indicates the capital should be moved in the following cases:

• When you have no choice, or there is no chance to save the capitol
• When it will become more central to your empire, and an appropriate city is available.
• When it's location turns out to be a very bad spot

If you start to build the palace, does the old palace remain in place until the new one is complete, or does the old palace immediately disappear?

If it does disappear, what is the cost of not having a capital?

Thanks

[Shaka II]

I'm pretty certain that the original capital stays there until the new one is built.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Gueron


...The answers that I have received on topic indicates the capital should be moved in the following cases:

• When you have no choice, or there is no chance to save the capitol
• When it will become more central to your empire, and an appropriate city is available.
• When it's location turns out to be a very bad spot

If you start to build the palace, does the old palace remain in place until the new one is complete, or does the old palace immediately disappear?

If it does disappear, what is the cost of not having a capital?

Thanks

Yes, it's my understanding the old one stays till the new one is built, unless it is overrun, but it's been sooo long since I moved one , probably back early on after Civ3 came out. (My early defeats in learning Civ4 were generally too quick and bloody to allow for such
things. ) As far as costs, there's financial loss obviously from no "capitol; " in Civ3, I think it heightened your citizen discontent empire-wide if you were deprived of the capitol, but I'm not sure how this reflected in Civ4.

I authored a thread myself this season, though new to the forums and think it's great to make a summation as you have, but we mustn't forget, in your doing so, the guys who are doing micro-economic analysis on the capital as an individual site and doing stuff like moving their "capitol" just to free up the old "capital" as a GP farm or to get more hammers for a capitol-centric production scheme. (This would be a little more complex analysis than just moving for "a better site," which is relative.) The CS Slingshot guys seem to be (sometimes) doing a hybrid of these, moving the site, maybe for hammers, but running Bureaucracy where specialists in the capitol are key.

Right now I am doing none of this , but I rarely play above Noble and haven't tried MP yet. In a multi-player game, to survive, I might become a very different animal.

[Gueron]

Thanks. It appears that it does stay in the original place until it is built.

I accidentially discovered that fact on my own, when I was building a capital at one of my cities in an FDR campaign I happen to be playing. Fortunately I caught it before Boston became the capital.

With that in mind, is a capital automatically built when you lose the capital city, and the capital is moved?

[Generaldoktor]

I think you have to commission it to be built, like any other construction, otherwise of course, your governors wouldn't know which city you want it in.