Change the Capital of Spain?

[Aidun]

Considering all this:
- Lower building capacity (temporary)
- Loss of culture (relatively)
- Loss of REX capacity
- RP problems (of minor importance)

I voted against it

Aidun

[BigFree]

Originally posted by OliverFA

So yes, we are winning some commerce and shields but... are they enough to compensate for the great amount we are about to lose for many turns?

Yes, the difference is more than enough to compensate.

Originally posted by OliverFA
Also, the capital shift won't have such a radical impact. It's only moving it 4 tiles. Santiago will continue as much corrupt as it is now.

4 tiles does make a pretty big difference in the game of corruption calculation; considering that we are moving 4 cities 4 tiles closer to the Capitol. These cities are not completely corrupt, but are pretty high. It not like moving the Capitol 4 tiles closer to some cities that are already 30 tiles away.


Madrid as Capitol

Leon is 8 tiles away and ~29% corruption
Zaragoza is 9 tiles away and ~32% corruption
Vigo is 10 tiles away and ~36% corruption
Santiago is 11 tiles away and ~40% corruption
Barcelona is 4 tiles away and ~14% corruption
Toledo is 4 tiles away and ~14% corruption

Total is 165

Pamplona as Capitol

Leon is 4 tiles away and ~14% corruption
Zaragoza is 5 tiles away and ~18% corruption
Vigo is 6 tiles away and ~21% corruption
Santiago is 7 tiles away and ~25% corruption
Barcelona is 7 tiles away and ~25% corruption
Toledo is 6 tiles away and ~21% corruption

Total is 124

There's a difference right now of 41 percentage points of corruption between the two, in favor of Pamplona being the Capitol. This number will only get higher as one can see from the layout of our land there will be far more cities closer to Pamplona than there will be cities closer to Madrid. The more cities we build, the bigger the difference will be.

There are also more bonus tiles, rivers and generally more productive tiles that stem outward from Pamplona than there are when you make the same scan around Madrid; hence the cities closer to Pamplona have more production and commerce capability than does Madrid, so reducing corruption in cities that produce more in terms of commerce and shields is better than reducing it in cities that don't. The difference between the two more than justifies "jumping" the Palace.

I wonder if I changed anyone's vote?

[BigFree]

It has been brough to my attention that moving the Palace to Pamplona also makes it harder for ND to culture 'flip' any of our cities on their border since our Capitol would be closer to them. This is one of the games checks to determine 'flipping.'

[Togas]

Let it be known:

IF we agree to do this, it will happen now, not later. I know some are worried that ND will see this as a sign of weakness on our part, however any weakness would be temporary.

Waiting to do this later is unacceptable. If Madrid is to be eventually "moved", there's no point in building a marketplace there or any wonders. They would be disbanded with Madrid. Madrid would simply sit and build military units for us and workers until the day comes that we decide to go through this ... and frankly, my vision for Spain is for us to build a nation that can financially afford it's military, not a nation that is burried in high upkeep costs and gpt deals because we cannot research.

It would be prudent of us to add a few workers or settlers to "New Madrid", however, we also need workers and settlers to fuel our expansion to the north and south, so that option should be carefully weighed.

This topic is one of the most difficult decisions we have yet undertaken, and I am glad to read so much discussion on it.

--Togas

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by Togas

This topic is one of the most difficult decisions we have yet undertaken, and I am glad to read so much discussion on it.

Absolutely. I see several people voted early - those people should feel free to request a manual change to their vote, if they happen to change their mind during the course of the discussion.

My vote could still go either way - I really want to hear the opinions of more of our members, and not just E_T and roadcage.

Let your voices be heard, everyone!

[Thud]

I am one who voted, rather rashly in fact. I voted against, but I think I might change my mind.

I voted against because of a) the culture loss, and b) the stumble it would cause in REXing.

Showing how terribly ignorant I am of our current domestic situation, I wonder whether the cities in question have courthouses yet. Anyone?

[BigFree]

Originally posted by Aidun
Considering all this:
- Lower building capacity (temporary)
- Loss of culture (relatively)
- Loss of REX capacity
- RP problems (of minor importance)

I voted against it

Aidun

The culture gained from Madrid stays with our Civ even if Madrid is abandoned. We only lose Madrid's ability to produce more culture, temporarily, while Pamplona begins to produce it's own form the Palace.

We don't lose much of our REX capacity since Madrid will be supplying a settler for the city that is 9-9-9 from Madrid. Btw, what is this future cities name? I tired of calling it (9-9-9...) We could even squeeze a 3rd settler from Mardid if we wanted too.

[BigFree]

DP

[pikesfan]

Corruption does not only affect money, but also shields. If we disband Madrid, we will also lose a great shield powerhouse, not only now, but in the future because we will lose shields permanently to corruption in Madrid, for the Madrileños will be so offended at their King’s abandonment that they will not want to work except with great reluctance.

One day we may have new ways of building things and new ways of extracting resources from the hills around Madrid, ones that will give us many times more shields than can be counted. [ooc] Factory [/ooc]

In the time it takes us to do all this moving business, what could we have built in Madrid? How many swordsmen could we have armed? What buildings could we have made? And how many horses and donkeys will it take to cart everything to the new palace? For no one of any consequence will want to stay in a backwater, not even me, and I can tell you the price of horses and donkeys and carts will go through the roof, and my treasure chest will be sore depleted, for unlike some of the great nobles of the realm, I don’t have vast gatherings of retainers and servants and slaves to carry my littlest and biggest things about while I recline in my litter and get squid dropped into my mouth. I have three sisters, a maidservant for each of them, a cook, a between-stairs girl, a washerwoman, a manservant for me, and a little boy to do the running about. So it’s me and my manservant who have to do the carrying for the household. The maidservants are overburdened already, even though they are strapping peasant girls who are used to hard work. Unlike some people, I certainly don’t have the money to feed a) girls whose only claim to fame is that their breasts are like ripe peaches, b) sausage boys.

I wish I could have in my household a little man who does nothing but draw curious pictures of hands and things; no, look, I have to load my donkey myself and walk beside it wherever I go!


If we are worried about money, could His Majesty not consider a new type of government I have heard about called Constitutional Monarchy [ooc]Republic[/ooc], which somehow makes the realm richer as the King can devolve responsibility and doesn’t have to keep an eye on everything all the time? Instead of having the one Cort, he could have many Cortes, one for each province in the realm.

[BigFree]

Republic doesn't have an effect on corruption, so there will be no increase in shields in a change to it. The increase we see in Republic will be an extra commerce created in every square that is already producing one. This could be be off set by the fact that Republic supports no troops.

The Republic would net us (as of right now) 36 extra commerce. We have 39 units, of which 16 are supported now by Monarchy. So we now pay 23gpt to support them. Under Republic we would have to pay the full 39 gpt.

So here's some calculations:

Current Civ corruption rate: 24% 16/66 (16 is lost to corruption and 66 is gross income)

If you apply the 24% corruption to the 36 commerce gained from Republic you reduce the gain to 27 commerce.

So lets adjust our gross income to (66+36)x24%=24 gpt lost due to corruption. Which leaves us with 78 gpt to pay for upkeep of buildings and units and what we now pay to other Civ's

78
-39 for unit upkeep
-6 for maintenace of buildings
-18 to other Civs
=15 gpt for Spain (as opposed to the 3 gpt we get now)

We currently have 3 units and 3 buildings in production. This will cost us 6 more gpt.

In order to build more, we need more population or we need to decrease corruption. Doing the Palace "jump" will decrease corruption, Civ wide, by 25%. That means that in a Monarchy we would have an extra 5 gpt, immediatley after the jump and would compound as the turns went on, including the commerce created in less corrupt cities surrounding Pamplona. In Republic we would get an extra 9 gpt immediatley after the "jump."

[ruby_maser]

This poll was a bad idea. Better to just have decreed it so than to try to convince these people anything...

[BigFree]

Ok, I "Decree It!"

[OliverFA]

As I see it, the question is not if the palace will jump sooner or later, which everyone seems to agree. The question is: Would be win anything by doing the jumping now and in this way? I say we lose our main production center for several turns. A production center that would become even better if we continued improving it instead of disbanding it and then having to rebuild what we already have, plus the cities that benefit from less corruption are cities with small size and production, and we won't see the difference till later, when this change could have been done by other less radical ways.

Bold ideas seem cool, because they always come with the "seasoned strategist" feeling ("Hey I do this that seems to be a bad move, but after a bit time... look! This is better than before!") but I don't think that's the case.

[DAVOUT]

I suggest that we do not decide moving the Palace without discussing were we intend to put the FP.

I therefore do not vote yet.

[astrologix]

In military terms, jumping the palace will give us a better position for conquered ND cities.

Currently Anagramaskus is 18 tiles far from Madrid and Dar-El Killam 19 tiles far.

For comparison, Vigo is 10 tiles far from Madrid.

If the palace is jumped to Pamplona, Anagramaskus will be 12 tiles far and dar-El-Killam 15 tiles far from Pamplona.

If we found a city at the extreme south of our lands, this city will be 18 tiles far from Madrid and 14 tiles far from Pamplona.

Thinking on a future war against ND , Pamplona will be a much better site for our capital than Madrid.

And thinking on the future FP site, it would let us the freedom to build it on the current ND lands (Dar-El-Killam, for exemple) rather than in our south lands. With the Pamplona position, we can think on a future profitable and manageable conquest war.

In REX terms, I don't think that jumping the Palace now will give a penalty, because the one of the 2 settlers from Madrid could build a city at the North of Madrid (the 9-9-9 city). And Pamplona can continue to build settlers for a while, even if it becomes the capital.

For these and the other reasons exposed by others nobles above, I vote YES to jumping the palace NOW.