Is a Palace leapfrog strategy viable?

Rakso · December 14, 2001, 23:10

Okay... I'm halfway through the game and in control of one of five major continents on Regent level. I'm a couple of techs behind the leaders in science, and my continent, for some reason, has no strategic resources after iron.

From the above, you can guess that I'm forced to expand and start invading.

I was wondering if you could cope with the corruption by building a Forbidden Palace near your original cities (and your centers of production, probably), then moving the Palace further out. As the cities in the vicinity build all their improvements, you can rebuild the palace even farther, while Forbidden Palace keeps the old cities alive.

Does this work? I don't think it's new, but I just got the game.

Heck, it's only my first game and I played on a Huge map and certainly don't want to redo it with a CivMod scenario. What I really need is some editor that edits the rules for EXISTING saved games...

Sevorak · December 14, 2001, 23:38

Rakso,

With the patch, the Palace's cost will be...prohibitive. 1000 shields is quite the investment, and not a very economically sound strategy.

Civ3mod files are not scenarios. There are no scenarios, just maps and mods. When Civ 3 starts, it grabs whatever rules are in the civ3mod.bic file and applies them, so using a mod should properly affect saved games (unless the mod is civ3copytooled, in which case there will be problems).

-Sev

Rakso · December 14, 2001, 23:51

Copytooled?

Aeson · December 15, 2001, 04:39

In the game I'm currently playing I did just what you were talking about. Built my FP near my old palace, and then used a Great Leader to build my palace on another continent later on. In most cases it would just be better to build the FP on the new continent, but I had started out on somewhat of a peninsula, so my palace was about 15 spaces from the center of my empire. With the patch, I don't think that it would be feasible without a Great Leader, as it would have taken 1000 turns to build the palace at that time. I think there are only 640 turns from 4000BC to 2050AD, so that would never work out...

Velociryx · December 16, 2001, 00:39

Depends on what you hope to accomplish.

Post-patch, the strat is no nearly as viable as it once was, though if you're playing a Militaristic Civ, you can get a steady supply of Great Leaders and make it work to your advantage.

If it's something you wanna try, recommend you play a Mil-Civ (Romans, for example), and burn a Great Leader relocating your Palace to a front you're not currently fighting on, after you've rushed as many culture-enhancing builds on that front as you can. (Also, it would be wisest to select a front that does NOT see you competing with some other civ's capitol).

Fight on one front, devour a few cities on the other, then relocate your capitol via another Great Leader to wherever it makes the most sense.

An alternate approach would be to plan to relocate your capitol only once.

If you take this approach, relocate your capitol on a front that has a large number of cities, not particularly close to anyone's capitol and plan to leave it there. Once you're all done fighting on whatever front you WERE fighting on, send your armies to the "front" near your newly relocated capitol. Some cities may have already converted, but no matter. Start fighting and capture by force any that you like. The proximity of your capitol will make it less likely they'll revert, and easier to keep should an AI counter attack deprive you of one in the short term....

-=Vel=-

MarshalN · December 16, 2001, 00:55

This is still a VERY expensive strategy, no matter what you do. If you happen to have leaders to burn (which is still a random event, all things considered, militaristic civ or not), you can do it. Otherwise, I think you're better off rushing the courthouses.... I just can't think of a way to justify the super-high production cost of a new palace -- and the opportunity cost of an instant wonder.

If there aren't new wonders anywhere near in sight, I guess using the leader would be good. Otherwise..... I'd think the wonder, whatever it is, is a better choice.

Aeson · December 16, 2001, 01:49

I tend to leave wonders out of my strategy, because I usually play at deity level, and building any wonders at all is a chancy thing. I never need any wonders to function, and its usually more economical to just capture them from the AI anyways. I think that if you have a large number of cities that would benifit from a relocation of your palace, or building of your forbidden palace, then that is the best use for a leader (after the first army if you plan on continued warfare). The only exception would be if you have diplomatic worries, and need the UN to keep from losing, as thats the only wonder that's necessary to have to win. On the easier levels, you really don't need leaders to get the wonders that you want anyways, and below regent you should get all the wonders without using any leaders, other than 1 or 2 early ones perhaps.

Skeletal Dragon · December 17, 2001, 01:43

Even if you do plan to do the palace-hop strategy, it isn't very viable. It ultimately equates to lost shields in producing the palace. In addition, if you keep on moving your palace in relation to your captured cities, then you would be increasing the productivity of sub-par cities (since they lose city improvements) rather than your former major cities, which would do better if they were closer to the palace.

Mokael · December 17, 2001, 14:16

I used a similar tactic couple of times, and seemed to work OK. Although, I think, it was on a large map/warlord level. As for the post-patch Palace cost - once you get into Industrious age, then with factory, coal plant, and Hoover Dam, the Palace's cost is not that expensive (depending on the "corruption level" and "shields output" in the city, of course)

pchang · December 17, 2001, 14:24

Only when I have gone Communist and am in a final war to dominate the planet do I get enough leaders to play bounce the palace games. Late in the game, I don't need leaders to build wonders. Plus, leaders are usually on a different continent than my main cities and since I can't air lift them, it is a pain to put them on a slow boat home.

In "Build the Spaceship" games, I NEVER have excess leaders.

Aqualung · December 18, 2001, 00:21

I have 16 cities. Ur's non-wasted shield production is 21. It will take me 120 turns to build a Palace. That's 2520 shields...

Who's bright idea was it to increase the cost of the Palace (relative to empire size)?

He needs to be smacked. HARD!

16 cities. Did I mention I only had 16 cities? That's HALF the "optimum size" for this size map.

gachnar · December 19, 2001, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Aqualung
I have 16 cities. Ur's non-wasted shield production is 21. It will take me 120 turns to build a Palace. That's 2520 shields...

I've had palaces in high production cities claim that they will take 450 turns. That is longer than the game will allow (it took more than 100 turns to make that city)

If you want to move it, you're gonna have to waste a leader on it. Or set aside about 90-100 turns (assuming the city grows, gets workers to improve/grow it).

Quote:

Who's bright idea was it to increase the cost of the Palace (relative to empire size)?

The people who decided to make the game.

I think it was a great decision. How easy should it be to move the seat of government and the cultural heart of your civilization?

I bet the UK would find it terribly easy to move their capital to say... York. However, I bet if they did, the French would just move theirs to Le Harve, and perhaps get some of those cities in southern England to convert. Italy would move its capital to Milan, perhaps, and Germany would move its capital to Stutgart. Maybe they'd get Alsace-Lorraine back.

Do you see how silly this is? It was not an intended feature of the game. Firaxis made it a lot harder to pull off.

Quote:

He needs to be smacked. HARD!

Yeah! Silly Firaxians... why cant they make the game easy for me?

MisterMuppet · December 20, 2001, 05:02

I had started a game about a week ago, specifically to perform the palace bounce strategy. I built the FP in a city right next to my capitol so that when I moved the palace away they wouldn't suffer terrible corruption. Last night I had expanded up to the English border, was ready to relocate to achieve some cultural defections and suddenly it is prohibitively expensive.
My newly founded city with 2 defenders and a temple will take 200 turns to build a palace. The only defection I have had was from the Chinese who foolishly built a city in a 2 tile gap in my empire. However this is what I am trying with the English, get a city close, rush build cultrual improvements and a palace to get some defections.
Does this mean my only chance is to build hordes of Cavalry and rush the English?

Aeson · December 20, 2001, 06:17

With the patch they didn't raise the cost of the palace exactly. They linked the cost of building the palace to the number of cities you have. In most games this will mean that it does indeed cost more, though perhaps not in all situations.

ucel · December 21, 2001, 06:33

Quote:

Originally posted by gachnar

I think it was a great decision. How easy should it be to move the seat of government and the cultural heart of your civilization?

Yeah! Silly Firaxians... why cant they make the game easy for me?

Poland changed its capital twice in less than 500 years. It's quite obvious thet your capital should be in the centre of your empire and you really shoud have a possibility to move it to the better place.

Platypus · December 24, 2001, 11:22

Japan relocated its capital from Edo to Tokyo, Brazil from Rio de Janeiro to Sao Paulo. The capitals in the US, Australia, and New Zealand are not where they used to be. Northern Africa and the Tigris/Euphrates "fertile crescent" are full of relocated capitals. The Indian capital used to be at Agra, and I'm not even sure where the Chinese capital used to be except that it probably wasn't Beijing. And all of that doesn't even get into the temporary relocations that have occurred during war and been reversed when the war ended.

The point, obviously, is that relocating capitals is not a particularly rare occurrence IRL, nor is it prohibitively expensive. There might be good gameplay arguments for making capital relocation extremely difficult in Civ3, but no serious realism argument. The current situation is markedly unrealistic in the context of history spanning millennia.

Guspasho · December 28, 2001, 16:46

Back to what the original poster suggested, I don't think it would be too difficult, depending on where you're hoping to place the palace. I was just playing a warlord game as Persia where I'm on a large continent that's divided into two landmasses with a wide isthmus connecting them. I had control of the northern landmass, and France, Russia, and Babylon were sitting on the southern one. I took out Russia and Babylon, providing me with some large cities that would be good producers if they weren't so far away from my capital. I had ambitions of dislodging France, who's my chief rival in the game, but it took my Cavalry 4 turns to reach there, and I was still using Immortals from my less productive cities, they took 12 turns to reach the front. I got a leader and slapped down an FP in Moscow (who says never march on Moscow, ha!) I had an instant productive center on the front.

Theorizing now, if I put the FP in next to my capital, and my Palace on the front, I could probably move it to the nearest large city in 10-20 turns. The first move would be instant, with the leader, but I wouldn't move the palace again in this situation. Maybe you're on an extra-huge map and you want to push the palace further forward, I would probably move it two cities forward with each hop, and that might take 10-20 turns once I've got my palace established nearby IF I'm in a developed area. Otherwise, forget it, stick with leaders would be my advice - if you want to waste them. I got lucky in that I didn't have any wonders to build at the time and I really was itching for a leader to build my FP.

Rian Mueller